The Reputation of Punishers Depends on Situations: Sanction Intensity and Interaction Type

Punishing norm violators is considered essential in maintaining large-scale cooperation in human society. However, punishment is not sustainable if it is costly. If the punisher receives a reputational benefit, such as being evaluated as a good person in future interactions, the cost of punishment will be rewarded. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the reputational consequences of punishment. This study systematically examined how punishers were recognized in the cooperative and competitive evaluation domains. We focused on the effects of intervention type (punishment of non-cooperators and compensation for the victims), intensity (ratio of fees to fines), and interaction type (whether punishers were victims or not) on the evaluations. We examined how people evaluated punishers, compensators, and those who took no interventions in the hypothetical third-party punishment (Study 1: N = 394) and social dilemma game (Study 2: N = 400) by web-based surveys using crowd-sourcing services in Japan. Punishers were perceived as more competitive than those in other interventions. However, the intensity of sanction affected the evaluations of punishers in third-party punishment situations (i.e., where punishers were not the victims): punishers were perceived as less competitive if they restored unfair outcomes to fair ones. In contrast, in social dilemma situations (i.e., where punishers were the victims), punishers were rated more competitive and less cooperative than non-punishers, regardless of intensity. The reputation of punishment highly depends on situations, and the reputational benefits of punishers may be to maintain a reputation as strong persons rather than being recognized as cooperative partners.