Norm violations and punishments across human societies

Cross-societal variation in norm enforcement systems

Across human societies, people are sometimes willing to punish norm violators. Such punishment can take the form of revenge from victims, seemingly altruistic intervention from third parties, or legitimized sanctioning from institutional representatives. Although prior work has documented cross-cultural regularities in norm enforcement, substantial variation exists in the prevalence and forms of punishment across societies. Such cross-societal variation may arise from universal psychological mechanisms responding to different socio-ecological conditions, or from cultural evolutionary processes, resulting in different norm enforcement systems. To date, empirical evidence from comparative studies across diverse societies has remained disconnected, owing to a lack of interdisciplinary integration and a prevalent tendency of empirical studies to focus on different underpinnings of variation in norm enforcement. To provide a more complete view of the shared and unique aspects of punishment across societies, we review prior research in anthropology, economics and psychology, and take a first step towards integrating the plethora of socio-ecological and cultural factors proposed to explain cross-societal variation in norm enforcement. We conclude by discussing how future cross-societal research can use diverse methodologies to illuminate key questions on the domain-specificity of punishment, the diversity of tactics supporting social norms, and their role in processes of norm change. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'.

Rebels with a cause? How norm violations shape dominance, prestige, and influence granting

Norms play an important role in upholding orderly and well-functioning societies. Indeed, violations of norms can undermine social coordination and stability. Much is known about the antecedents of norm violations, but their social consequences are poorly understood. In particular, it remains unclear when and how norm violators gain or lose influence in groups. Some studies found that norm violators elicit negative responses that curtail their influence in groups, whereas other studies documented positive consequences that enhance violators' influence. We propose that the complex relationship between norm violation and influence can be understood by considering that norm violations differentially shape perceptions of dominance and prestige, which tend to have opposite effects on voluntary influence granting, depending on the type of norm that is violated. We first provide correlational (Study 1) and causal (Study 2) evidence that norm violations are associated with dominance, and norm abidance with prestige. We then examine how dominance, prestige, and resultant influence granting are shaped by whether local group norms and/or global community norms are violated. In Study 3, protagonists who violated global (university) norms but followed local (sorority/fraternity) norms were more strongly endorsed as leaders than protagonists who followed global norms but violated local norms, because the former were perceived not only as high on dominance but also on prestige. In Study 4, popular high-school students were remembered as violating global (school) norms while abiding by local (peer) norms. In Study 5, individuals who violated global (organizational) norms while abiding by local (team) norms were assigned more leadership tasks when global and local norms conflicted (making violators "rebels with a cause") than when norms did not conflict, because the former situation inspired greater prestige. We discuss implications for the social dynamics of norms, hierarchy development, and leader emergence.

The evolution of peace

While some species have affiliative and even cooperative interactions between individuals of different social groups, humans are alone in having durable, positive-sum, interdependent relationships across unrelated social groups. Our capacity to have harmonious relationships that cross group boundaries is an important aspect of our species' success, allowing for the exchange of ideas, materials, and ultimately enabling cumulative cultural evolution. Knowledge about the conditions required for peaceful intergroup relationships is critical for understanding the success of our species and building a more peaceful world. How do humans create harmonious relationships across group boundaries and when did this capacity emerge in the human lineage? Answering these questions involves considering the costs and benefits of intergroup cooperation and aggression, for oneself, one's group, and one's neighbor. Taking a game theoretical perspective provides new insights into the difficulties of removing the threat of war and reveals an ironic logic to peace - the factors that enable peace also facilitate the increased scale and destructiveness of conflict. In what follows, I explore the conditions required for peace, why they are so difficult to achieve, and when we expect peace to have emerged in the human lineage. I argue that intergroup cooperation was an important component of human relationships and a selective force in our species history beginning at least 300 thousand years. But the preconditions for peace only emerged in the past 100 thousand years and likely coexisted with intermittent intergroup violence which would have also been an important and selective force in our species' history.