Subscription Center
Sep 3, 2009 02:15 PM | 7
To promote the common good, should helpers be rewarded, or should free riders be punished? Although the bulk of previous research has fingered punishment as the best enforcer, a new study published online today in Science found that rewards are more effective.
"Groups that used rewards got significantly higher payoffs than groups that punished," David Rand, a lead study author and postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, said in a Science podcast.
He and his team used a classic public goods game to study how groups of volunteers encouraged the best outcome for the most people. In a series of monetary interactions, individuals decided how much money to contribute to a common pot, and they could then decide whether to reward good contributors or punish bad—both of which would entail spending money.
Previous public goods studies had focused on one-time interactions and found that people were more likely to swindle or punish others. But in situations where interactions were repeated, people found greater success in reward-based structures—in which those that contributed were rewarded and those who didn't were ignored—than those in which costly punishment was doled out to those who didn't contribute.
Rand explained in the podcast that the findings also have straightforward applications in everyday life. "Our studies suggest that you would do well to be nice to the people that are helpful to you, or be nice to the people who you see contributing to the group, and you see people sort of not doing their part—as opposed to sort of going out of your way to really hurt them and punish them for it, you should just stop helping them, and use denial of reward as an incentive for them to do their part," he said.
The authors of the study distill the lesson to next-door-neighbor relations: "If I resent my neighbor's gas-guzzling SUV, I could exercise costly punishment by slashing his tires," which "carries the risk of retaliation," they write. "Conversely, I could be extra helpful to my other neighbor who just bought a low-emission vehicle."
Just how these findings translate beyond the home and office into a broader, more codified legal context needs further examination. "It's unclear to what extent these results generalize to politics," said Rand in the podcast. But he and his team are looking into this question of whether standardizing a reward or punishment for a specific action will change the decisions in public goods games.
Other similar games across the globe have found some cultures where punishment is doled out to high contributors rather than low contributors, a dynamic that Rand singles out as particularly harmful to the overall public good. "Punishment can be really destructive when the low contributors punish the cooperators," he said. "But with rewards, there's no such danger of that because if you have people rewarding each other when they shouldn't that's good, really."
Image of the study authors courtesy of David Rand
More News Blog: Next: Academic researchers receive on average $33k a year from the medical industry Previous: Body clock linked to weight gain
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
7 Comments
Add CommentWhether positive rewards are more or less effective than negative rewards doesn't really bear on the question of whether negative rewards (punishment) can be dispensed with entirely. We humans are complex entities, and there will always be those who simply don't respond to positive rewards in a way that would be adequate to keep everyone else safe, even if there were a way of efficiently doling out rewards as to all of the social behavior that needs regulating (obeying traffic rules, etc. etc.). But if positive rewards are such a good mechanism for social regulation, it says a lot about the persistence of religious belief systems that promise (unbounded!) spiritual rewards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is Capitalism.... nothing new here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly! But of course, capitalism only flourishes in an environment condusive to it - and as we've learned, such an environment requires rules (and consequenses for those who break them). In places without enforceable rules, as is the case in many 3rd-world or war-torn countries, capitalism - and all the good it brings - flounders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are 6.8G homo sapiens on planet earth. The bad ones are less than 1%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForcefully take from the evil elements - organs, blood and other tissue to benefit the unfortunate good individuals. Do not incarcerate or torture the evil ones just painlessly end their existence.
@scientific earthling,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could go with that on two conditions:
1- that we have some means of determining WITHOUT ERROR who the bad ones are. It must be more than "those who do things differently than the majority"; and
2- that we differentiate the "bad" from the mentally ill.
We have been working on "industrialising" this concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a link to the "idea"
http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/a-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-chapter-1/
Here is a link to an implementation using the right to obtain a zero interest loan as the Reward
http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-democratisation-of-government-spending/
Contact me for more information or if you would like to deploy it in your community.
Yesterday in Sydney a pair of thugs were apprehended in the process of holding up a store with firearms - one was shot dead. They both have a long history of armed and violent assaults. The person who called the police is fearful should details of his/her identity become available to the families from which these individuals come - it has happened through the legal system - lawyers for the accused got information about the complainant and passed on the information to the criminals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny doubt here?
Don't you think these lawyers should also donate organs or were they afraid for their life, having chosen to defend the undefendable.