we like punishment

a basic public good game consists of a group playing together where each person has some money and can give some to the public kitty. the sum amount is then multiplied and divided back amongst the group. it creates a dilemma where you really should not contribute, keeping all of your money, but let everyone else contribute and get some of their money. of course, if everyone did this, no one would contribute and everyone would earn less than if they all contributed everything.

the game has been done a million times with many different manipulations. one manipulation is to allow others to punish free riders - those that didn't contribute - by reducing their earnings. this tends to increase contributions, maintaining them at a higher level than without punishment, and generally increase efficiency of the system.

but what of well-being? perhaps people prefer to live in a world without punishment? not the case, says a new study:

...harsher punishment possibilities lead to signifcantly [sic] higher well-being, controlling for earnings and other relevant variables. People derive independent satisfaction from interacting under the protection of strong punishment possibilities.

what does this say about humans? do we enjoy living in an environment where we can punish? or are punished? or can injure lazy people? a follow-up should separate satisfaction from punishing from satisfaction and reducing the incomes of their opponents... they attempted it with the hard vs. soft punishment (hard punishment reduced the punished's income much more at the same cost), and it seems to indicate that more than anything they enjoyed the hard punishment - that is, the more they could reduced the free rider's income, the more they enjoyed the game. and, although they controlled for income, can income really be completely separated from punishment when it increases along with income, and "causes" that increase?

Labels: economics, social