The Development of Children's Punishment Behavior Across Social and Motivation Contexts

Marshall, Julia, Brighton MA

Investigators

Abstract

This award is funded in whole or in part under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2). This award was provided as part of NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (SPRF) program. The goal of the SPRF program is to prepare promising, early career doctoral-level scientists for scientific careers in academia, industry or private sector, and government. SPRF awards involve two years of training under the sponsorship of established scientists and encourage Postdoctoral Fellows to perform independent research. NSF seeks to promote the participation of scientists from all segments of the scientific community, including those from underrepresented groups, in its research programs and activities; the postdoctoral period is considered to be an important level of professional development in attaining this goal. Each Postdoctoral Fellow must address important scientific questions that advance their respective disciplinary fields. Under the sponsorship of Dr. Katherine McAuliffe at Boston College, this postdoctoral fellowship award supports an early career scientist examining whether the emergence of third-party punishment—a key cooperative behavior in human societies—varies depending on social and motivational context. Previously, researchers have documented how both children and adults are willing to engage in third-party punishment across societies; they will make personal sacrifices to punish transgressors even when unaffected by the transgression. A key question emanating from this work is whether we punish all transgressors equally or whether we are particularly likely to enforce norms in certain intergroup contexts. For instance, are we especially likely to punish an outgroup transgressor compared with an ingroup transgressor? Previous efforts to address this question have yielded mixed results, with some work finding that we punish in-groups more than out-groups and other work finding the opposite pattern of results. The present proposal seeks to clarify this area of research by considering how different motives may relate to people’s willingness to punish transgressors in intergroup contexts. Specifically, this research tests the specific theoretical proposal that in-group punishment is motivated by a desire to enhance cooperative interactions—so called, consequentialist motives—and out-group punishment is motivated by a desire to inflict harm on others—so called, retributive motives. To accomplish these aims, the studies use a multi-methodological approach that draws on previously-established developmental paradigms. Study 1 builds on ample theorizing suggesting that individuals should punish ingroup members more than outgroup members if punishment stands to deter bad behavior (i.e., consequentialist punishment). Study 2 tests a corollary hypothesis that children will punish outgroup members more than ingroup members if punishment only aims to harm and does not precipitate any positive societal benefits (i.e., retributive punishment). Study 3 brings these two aims together in a single study to examine whether children punish ingroup members more in consequentialist contexts and outgroup members more in retributive ones. Together, findings from these studies will bring important new evidence to bear on the core question of why we punish others. By leveraging our understanding of the various motivations underlying punishment, we can begin to make sense of the previous mixed findings from this literature and provide a clarifying framework for researchers interested in understanding variability in punitive behavior. The present studies also stand to shed light on the nature of prejudice and intergroup relations. Specifically, these studies are positioned to illustrate the ways in which punishment, even at an early age, may be used both as a tool to deter antisocial behavior within groups as well as a means of inflicting harm between groups. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.