Minimizing the costs that others impose upon oneself and upon those in whom one has a fitness stake, such as kin and allies, is a key adaptive problem for many organisms. Our ancestors regularly faced such adaptive problems (including homicide, bodily harm, theft, mate poaching, cuckoldry, reputational damage, sexual aggression, and the infliction of these costs on one's offspring, mates, coalition partners, or friends). One solution to this problem is to impose retaliatory costs on an aggressor so that the aggressor and other observers will lower their estimates of the net benefits to be gained from exploiting the retaliator in the future. We posit that humans have an evolved cognitive system that implements this strategy - deterrence - which we conceptualize as a revenge system. The revenge system produces a second adaptive problem: losing downstream gains from the individual on whom retaliatory costs have been imposed. We posit, consequently, a subsidiary computational system designed to restore particular relationships after cost-imposing interactions by inhibiting revenge and motivating behaviors that signal benevolence for the harmdoer. The operation of these systems depends on estimating the risk of future exploitation by the harmdoer and the expected future value of the relationship with the harmdoer. We review empirical evidence regarding the operation of these systems, discuss the causes of cultural and individual differences in their outputs, and sketch their computational architecture.
"4. Investor's forgiveness: a Cognition-Appraisal-Response (CAR) model " Revenge and forgiveness, we argue, have complementary biological functions: We posit that mechanisms for revenge are designed to deter harms, and that forgiveness mechanisms are designed to solve problems related to the preservation of valuable relationships despite the prior impositions of harm " . [McCullough, Kurzban, and Tabak, 2012: 2] Our proposed model depicted in Fig. 1 acknowledges the correlates of both relationship value and exploitation risk and, ultimately, links the investor's appraisals of expected relationship value and expected exploitation risk with the decision to forgive. This suggests the presence of a multi-stage model. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A growing literature suggests that some entrepreneurs lie to investors in order to improve the likelihood of acquiring resources needed for firm survival and growth. We propose a framework outlining the conditions that may enable an investor who has been told a lie by an entrepreneur to respond with forgiveness rather than by withdrawing from the relationship. Integrating the literatures on evolutionary psychology, forgiveness, and stakeholder theory we argue that investor's appraisals of expected relationship value and expected exploitation risk are the key antecedents to an investor's decision to forgive an entrepreneur's lie.
Journal of Business Venturing 09/2014; 29:741-754. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.08.005 · 3.06 Impact Factor
"Moreover, sharing equally with excluders is likely to result from a non-strategic prosocial motivation, because decisions in the Dictator Game were not confounded by strategic considerations to ultimately maximize personal gains and the amount of money participants gave to the excluders could not be influenced by the excluders (e.g. through rejection or punishment). This, in combination with the positive relationship with perspective-taking, suggests that sharing equally with the excluders is a prosocial tendency, which is likely to reflect an attempt to affiliate with the excluders (McCullough et al., 1997; Molden and Maner, 2013). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This functional magnetic resonance imaging study examined the neural correlates of punishment and forgiveness of initiators
of social exclusion (i.e. ‘excluders’). Participants divided money in a modified Dictator Game between themselves and people
who previously either included or excluded them during a virtual ball-tossing game (Cyberball). Participants selectively punished
the excluders by decreasing their outcomes; even when this required participants to give up monetary rewards. Punishment of
excluders was associated with increased activation in the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and bilateral anterior insula.
Costly punishment was accompanied by higher activity in the pre-SMA compared with punishment that resulted in gains or was
non-costly. Refraining from punishment (i.e. forgiveness) was associated with self-reported perspective-taking and increased
activation in the bilateral temporoparietal junction, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and
ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These findings show that social exclusion can result in punishment as well
as forgiveness of excluders and that separable neural networks implicated in social cognition and cognitive control are recruited
when people choose either to punish or to forgive those who excluded them.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 03/2014; 10(2). DOI:10.1093/scan/nsu045 · 7.37 Impact Factor
"Although punishing is presumably easier for a dominant than for a subordinate individual (e.g., Tebbich et al., 1996; McFarland & Majolo, 2011), in principle punishment could occur in any direction. McCullough et al. (2013) suggested aggressive behaviour by dominant individuals could be considered as an example of uncooperative behaviour (absence of tolerance; see below for further discussion). One may therefore ask whether subordinate group members use retaliatory aggression as a way of enforcing greater levels of tolerance by dominants. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In this study, we assessed whether retaliatory aggression is used by mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) victims as a way to enforce a reduction in further received aggression. Four possible types of retaliatory aggression were explored: direct or indirect and immediate or time-decoupled retal-iation. Both immediate direct retaliation (counteraggression) and immediate indirect retaliation (kin-oriented redirected aggression, that is, redirected aggression aimed at the original aggressor's kin) were observed, but only the latter was effective in reducing the risk of renewed aggression by the original aggressor. Depending on the exact definition of functional punishment one is adopt-ing, these results may be interpreted as suggesting kin-oriented redirected aggression represents a previously overlooked form of punishment based on the infliction of indirect costs.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.