Ben Goldacre\’s noted an interesting little paper.
They took 48 students and got them all to play a game for money: players could earn cash if they co-operated, but a player who did not co-operate could make more money, at the other players\’ expense, as a \”free rider\”, by appearing to co-operate, and then reneging on a deal at the last minute.
The game, of course, was staged. The other players were computer algorithms and they were programmed to be nasty: on several trials, one of the players would warmly encourage the others to co-operate, coming over all friendly, but then, at the last minute, turn on their fellow players, making more money for themselves, and robbing the students of both reward and peace of mind.
Some of the students were then offered the opportunity to punish the person who had ripped them off, at cost to themselves: for every 5c they spent, 15c would be confiscated from the free rider. Asked how they would feel about punishing their adversaries, students said they thought it would make them feel better. They were wrong. The participants who were offered ? and took ? the opportunity to exact revenge actually felt worse afterwards than the ones who had no such opportunity.
The results are actually a little weird…..for there\’s been quite a lot of this sort of experimentation within economics and these guys are psychologists….meaning that there\’s no reason why they should be aware of the other research, divided as academia is (although of course they may be aware, I\’ve no idea).
Some of the stuff that comes out from behavioural economics shows that, in these sorts of games (involving the division of money.) people will punish the free riders at cost to themselves. This is especially so when multiple iterations of the game are played with the same contestants. From this we can build models of fairness and trust….and we do very much look at these experiments to build such. Similarly, if we play the Prisoners\’ Dilemma through multiple iterations the winning strategy is to do whatever the opponent did last time. If they screwed you, screw them, if they co-operated, co-operate…..it pretty quickly gets to co-operation.
This can then be used to explain all sorts of things about our own society, like how notions of fairness are socially imposed and so on.
However, what this paper seems to be indicating is that we feel bad about such imposing: what this paper calls revenge would, in the economics papers, be called something more like punishing those who breach notions of fairness.
All of which is a little weird. For we know that we do indeed impose such punishments, it\’s part of the grease that makes society rub along. So why do we feel bad about doing so?