Advertisement

The benefit of the doubt: willful ignorance and altruistic punishment

  • Robert StüberEmail author
Original Paper
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

Altruistic punishment is often thought to be a major enforcement mechanism of social norms. I present experimental results from a modified version of the dictator game with third-party punishment, in which third parties can remain ignorant about the choice of the dictator. I find that a substantial fraction of subjects choose not to reveal the dictator’s choice and not to punish the dictator. I show that this behavior is in line with the social norms that prevail in a situation of initial ignorance. Remaining ignorant and choosing not to punish is not inappropriate. As a result, altruistic punishment is significantly lower when the dictator’s choice is initially hidden. The decrease in altruistic punishment leads to more selfish dictator behavior only if dictators are explicitly informed about the effect of willful ignorance on punishment rates. Hence, in scenarios in which third parties can ignore information and dictators know what this implies, third-party punishment may only ineffectively enforce social norms.

Keywords

Third-party punishment Willful ignorance Sorting Social preference 

JEL Classification

C91 D01 D63 D83 

Notes

Supplementary material

10683_2019_9633_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (357 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 357 KB)

References

  1. Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M., & Trachtman, H. (2017). Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy, 125, 625–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balafoutas, L., Grechenig, K., & Nikiforakis, N. (2014). Third-party punishment and counter-punishment in one-shot interactions. Economics Letters, 122, 308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balafoutas, L., & Nikiforakis, N. (2012). Norm enforcement in the city: A natural field experiment. European Economic Review, 56, 1773–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balafoutas, L., Nikiforakis, N., & Rockenbach, B. (2016). Altruistic punishment does not increase with the severity of norm violations in the field. Nature Communications, 7, 13327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartling, B., Engl, F., & Weber, R. A. (2014). Does willful ignorance deflect punishment? An experimental study. European Economic Review, 70, 512–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartling, B., & Fischbacher, U. (2012). Shifting the blame: On delegation and responsibility. The Review of Economic Studies, 79, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartling, B., Weber, R. A., & Yao, L. (2015). Do markets erode social responsibility? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 219–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cain, D., & Dana, J. (2012). Paying people to look at the consequences of their actions. Working paper.Google Scholar
  10. Cappelen, A. W., Cappelen, C., & Tungodden, B. (2018). Second-best fairness under limited information: The trade-off between false positives and false negatives. NHH Department of Economics Discussion Paper No. 18/2018.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, J. P. (2007). The demand for punishment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 62, 522–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter, J. P., & Matthews, P. H. (2012). Norm enforcement: Anger, indignation, or reciprocity? Journal of the European Economic Association, 10, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charness, G., Cobo-Reyes, R., & Jiménez, N. (2008). An investment game with third-party intervention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffman, L. C. (2011). Intermediation reduces punishment (and reward). American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 77–106.Google Scholar
  15. Costa-Gomes, M. A., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Stated beliefs and play in normal-form games. The Review of Economic Studies, 75, 729–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, J. C., Servátka, M., & Vadovič, R. (2017). Status quo effects in fairness games: Reciprocal responses to acts of commission versus acts of omission. Experimental Economics, 20, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dana, J., Cain, D. M., & Dawes, R. M. (2006). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Kuang, J. X. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egas, M., & Riedl, A. (2008). The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 871–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90, 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fehr, E., & Schurtenberger, I. (2018). Normative foundations of human cooperation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 458–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feiler, L. (2014). Testing models of information avoidance with binary choice dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Felgendreher, S. (2018). Do consumers choose to stay ignorant? The role of information in the purchase of ethically certified products. Working paper in economics 717, Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  27. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gächter, S., Gerhards, L., & Nosenzo, D. (2017). The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing. European Economic Review, 97, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., & Sefton, M. (2013). Peer effects in pro-social behavior: Social norms or social preferences? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2010). The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 13, 364–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goeschl, T., & Jarke, J. (2016). Second and third party punishment under costly monitoring. Journal of Economic Psychology, 54, 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grossman, Z. (2014). Strategic ignorance and the robustness of social preferences. Management Science, 60, 2659–2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grossman, Z., & van der Weele, J. J. (2017). Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. Journal of the European Economic Association, 15, 173–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kajackaite, A. (2015). If I close my eyes, nobody will get hurt: The effect of ignorance on performance in a real-effort experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 518–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kandul, S. (2016). Ex-post blindness as excuse? The effect of information disclosure on giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kovářík, J. (2007). Belief formation and evolution in public good games. LABSI Working Paper.Google Scholar
  39. Kriss, P. H., Weber, R. A., & Xiao, E. (2016). Turning a blind eye, but not the other cheek: On the robustness of costly punishment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krupka, E. L., & Weber, R. A. (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larson, T., & Capra, C. M. (2009). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Illusory preference for fairness? A comment. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 467.Google Scholar
  42. Lazear, E. P., Malmendier, U., & Weber, R. A. (2012). Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4, 136–63.Google Scholar
  43. Leibbrandt, A., & López-Pérez, R. (2012). An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levine, D. K. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewisch, P., Ottone, S., & Ponzano, F. (2011). Free-Riding on altruistic punishment? An experimental comparison of third-party punishment in a stand-alone and in an in-group environment. Review of Law & Economics, 7, 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political economy, 115, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lotz, S., Okimoto, T. G., Schlösser, T., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthey, A., & Regner, T. (2015). Do reciprocators exploit or resist moral wiggle room? An experimental analysis. Jena Economic Research Papers, 9.Google Scholar
  49. Moradi, H., & Nesterov, A. (2017). Moral wiggle room reverted: Information avoidance is myopic. Working paper.Google Scholar
  50. Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781.Google Scholar
  51. Nikiforakis, N. (2008). Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? Journal of Public Economics, 92, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nikiforakis, N., & Engelmann, D. (2011). Altruistic punishment and the threat of feuds. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nikiforakis, N., & Mitchell, H. (2014). Mixing the carrots with the sticks: Third party punishment and reward. Experimental Economics, 17, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nyarko, Y., & Schotter, A. (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70, 971–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oexl, R., & Grossman, Z. (2013). Shifting the blame to a powerless intermediary. Experimental Economics, 16, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Regner, T. (2018). Reciprocity under moral wiggle room: Is it a preference or a constraint? Experimental Economics, 21, 779–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trachtman, H., Steinkruger, A., Wood, M., Wooster, A., Andreoni, J., Murphy, J. J., et al. (2015). Fair weather avoidance: Unpacking the costs and benefits of “avoiding the ask”. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Weele, J. J. (2014). Inconvenient truths: Determinants of strategic ignorance in moral dilemmas. SSRN Working Paper.Google Scholar
  59. van der Weele, J. J., Kulisa, J., Kosfeld, M., & Friebel, G. (2014). Resisting moral wiggle room: How robust is reciprocal behavior? American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6, 256–264.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WZBBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations