Direct and indirect punishment of norm violations in daily life

Cooperation's evolution and maintenance depend on deterring cheaters and regulating norm violations. People frequently face norm violations (e.g., free-riding, littering) and often respond by imposing costs on offenders through punishment. This punishment can benefit both punishers (deterrence, status, reputation) and their groups (resource preservation, public goods). However, little is known about these factors in natural settings. Theoretical accounts suggest cooperation is maintained through direct and indirect reciprocity and partner choice. These involve punishment forms like costly punishment, gossip, and social exclusion, which deter cheating and promote norm compliance. Most empirical evidence, however, comes from controlled laboratory settings lacking the real-world complexity where relational, situational, and emotional factors significantly influence punishment choices. The study investigates the decision rules underlying the choice between direct (overt confrontation) and indirect (gossip, social avoidance) punishment strategies. Direct punishment, while effective, is risky due to potential retaliation, whereas indirect strategies are less risky but may be less effective at immediately stopping violations. The study hypothesizes that punishment decisions weigh the benefits of behavior adjustment (higher for valued individuals and personal victimization) against retaliation risks (higher for severe violations and powerful offenders) and are also influenced by negative emotions. The study uses daily assessments over two weeks to document punishment of norm violations (behaviors deemed immoral, unacceptable, or improper) within various relationships, measuring both punishment motivations and behaviors. This contrasts with typical experimental studies focusing on costly punishment between strangers.

The literature review extensively cites previous research on costly punishment, its benefits for both individuals and groups, and the theoretical frameworks explaining the maintenance of cooperation (direct and indirect reciprocity, partner choice). It highlights the limitations of laboratory-based studies in capturing the real-world nuances of punishment, emphasizing the role of relational, situational, and emotional factors. The review then discusses the contrasting characteristics of direct (confrontational) and indirect (gossip, social exclusion) punishment strategies and their associated risks and benefits, setting the stage for the study's hypotheses on the conditional use of these strategies based on cost-benefit calculations and emotional responses.

The study employed a longitudinal design with daily assessments over two weeks using a sample of 257 Dutch participants (66% female, age 18-75). Participants were recruited through panel agencies and completed an intake session in a lab, followed by daily surveys on their smartphones and two follow-up surveys (7-14 days after the daily assessment phase). The daily surveys assessed whether participants experienced or witnessed norm violations (self-relevant or other-relevant). They reported the details, their relationship with the offender and victim (if applicable), perceived power dynamics, moral wrongness, harmfulness of the offense, and their emotions (anger, disgust, fear, sadness, happiness, general emotional valence). Motivations to punish (using a scale) and punishment behaviors (yes/no) were recorded for direct confrontation, gossip, and social avoidance. The follow-up surveys reassessed certain aspects and gathered additional data on subsequent actions taken. Data analysis included linear mixed models for continuous dependent variables (punishment motivations) and binary logistic regression models (Generalized Estimating Equations) for binary dependent variables (punishment behaviors), accounting for the hierarchical data structure and autocorrelation. Within-person-centered and person-average variables were analyzed, controlling for gender. The study pre-registered its methods and data on the Open Science Framework.

The study found that gossip was the most frequent punishment response, though confrontation was as likely when immediate intervention was feasible. Both were more common than avoidance, likely reflecting their differing costs and benefits. Analysis revealed context-dependent punishment. Participants valued offenders more when directly confronting them; this suggests a higher benefit in adjusting valued others' behavior. Personally victimized participants showed more direct confrontation than observers. The severity of the violation influenced punishment choice. Severe violations led to increased gossip and social avoidance but decreased confrontation, suggesting a risk mitigation strategy. Power dynamics also played a role; low-power individuals used more indirect methods, while high-power individuals used direct confrontation. Emotions also played a significant part. Anger correlated with increased punishment overall, whereas disgust correlated more strongly with indirect punishment (gossip, exclusion). These findings are consistent across daily and follow-up assessments, indicating reliable patterns of punishment.

The findings demonstrate that punishment is highly context-dependent and not a random or unconditional choice between strategies. The results support the hypothesis that punishment decisions balance the benefits of altering offenders' behavior (especially for valued individuals and personal victimization) and the risks of retaliation (particularly in severe violations and power imbalances). The study supports socio-functional accounts of moral emotions, showing distinct relationships between anger (increased punishment overall) and disgust (increased indirect punishment). The prevalence of gossip highlights its effectiveness as a low-risk, reputation-damaging strategy. The study contributes to evolutionary models of cooperation by demonstrating the context-sensitive use of different punishment strategies in real-world settings. These insights could improve theoretical models of cooperation and norm enforcement by incorporating variations in punishment strategies and relevant contextual factors (power, social networks, offense costliness).

The study shows that people use direct and indirect punishment conditionally, based on benefits, retaliation risks, and emotions. This challenges the common experimental conflation of different punishment types under 'costly punishment'. Future research should directly measure the costs imposed on offenders and further investigate how network properties and offense costliness affect punishment choices. The findings highlight the importance of understanding varied punishment strategies in explaining phenomena like bystander intervention and the impact of social media on moral outrage.

The broad definition of punishment might include actions that didn't effectively impose costs on offenders. While the daily assessment method reduces recall bias, it might have increased participant attentiveness to violations and increased intervention frequency. These limitations do not, however, affect the main conclusions regarding the relationship between relational, situational, and emotional factors and the choice of direct versus indirect punishment strategies.