CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement

Buckholtz, Joshua W, Marois, René·2012·Nature Neuroscience
DOI 10.1038/nn.3087
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Among animals, Homo sapiens is unique in its capacity for widespread cooperation and prosocial behavior among large and genetically heterogeneous groups of individuals. This ultra-sociality figures largely in our success as a species. It is also an enduring evolutionary mystery. There is considerable support for the hypothesis that this facility is a function of our ability to establish, and enforce through sanctions, social norms. Third-party punishment of norm violations ("I punish you because you harmed him") seems especially crucial for the evolutionary stability of cooperation and is the cornerstone of modern systems of criminal justice. In this commentary, we outline some potential cognitive and neural processes that may underlie the ability to learn norms, to follow norms and to enforce norms through third-party punishment. We propose that such processes depend on several domain-general cognitive functions that have been repurposed, through evolution's thrift, to perform these roles.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3087

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The role of the right DLPFC may be that it selects a specific response from among possible response options by integrating information about harm and blame with context-specific rules.

    “The role of the right DLPFC may be that it selects a specific response from among possible response options by integrating information about harm and blame with context-specific rules.”

    From tDCS Over DLPFC Leads to Less Utilitarian Response in Moral-Personal Judgment (2018) · cites this paper as Buckholtz and Marois (2012)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 185–190 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bicchieri, C. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
  3. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P.J. J. Theor. Biol. 132, 337–356 (1988). · DOI
  4. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. Theor. Popul. Biol. 65, 17–28 (2004). · DOI
  5. Jensen, K., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13046–13050 (2007). · DOI
  6. Henrich, J. et al. Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J. & Henrich, J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10918–10925 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Burke, C.J., Tobler, P.N., Baddeley, M. & Schultz, W. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 14431–14436 (2010). · DOI
  9. Krajbich, I., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N.L. & Camerer, C.F. J. Neurosci. 29, 2188–2192 (2009). · DOI
  10. Haidt, J. in Handbook of Affective Sciences (eds. R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer & H.H. Goldsmith) 852–870 (Oxford University Press, 2003).
  11. Seymour, B., Singer, T. & Dolan, R. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 300–311 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Grön, G. & Fehr, E. Neuron 56, 185–196 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Balleine, B.W., Delgado, M.R. & Hikosaka, O. J. Neurosci. 27, 8161–8165 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Miller, E.K. & Cohen, J.D. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 167–202 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Knoch, D., Schneider, F., Schunk, D., Hohmann, M. & Fehr, E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20895–20899 (2009). · DOI
  16. Sanfey, A.G., Rilling, J.K., Aronson, J.A., Nystrom, L.E. & Cohen, J.D. Science 300, 1755–1758 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gospic, K. et al. PLoS Biol. 9, e1001054 (2011). · DOI
  18. Mikhail, J. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 143–152 (2007). · DOI
  19. Bendor, J. & Swistak, P. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 1493–1545 (2001). · DOI
  20. Marlowe, F.W. et al. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278, 2159–2164 (2011). · DOI
  21. Boyd, R., Gintis, H. & Bowles, S. Science 328, 617–620 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. Evol. Hum. Behav. 25, 63–87 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Darley, J. Morality in the law: the psychological foundations of citizens' desires to punish transgressions. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 5, 1–23 (2009). · DOI
  24. LaFave, W. Criminal Law (West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, 2003).
  25. Shen, F.X., Hoffman, M.B., Jones, O.D., Greene, J.D. & Marois, R. New York Univ. Law Rev. 86, 1307–1360 (2011).
  26. Waytz, A. & Mitchell, J.P. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 197–200 (2011). · DOI
  27. Young, L., Camprodon, J.A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A. & Saxe, R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 6753–6758 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Heekeren, H.R. et al. Neuroimage 24, 887–897 (2005). · DOI
  29. Feigenson, N. & Park, J. Law Hum. Behav. 30, 143–161 (2006). · DOI
  30. Bright, D.A. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. Law Hum. Behav. 30, 183–202 (2006). · DOI
  31. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R. & Tsivkin, S. Science 284, 970–974 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V. & Fehr, E. Science 314, 829–832 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Buckholtz, J.W. et al. Neuron 60, 930–940 (2008). · DOI
  34. Oswald, M.E., Orth, U., Aeberhard, M. & Schneider, E. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 718–731 (2005). · DOI
  35. Cushman, F. & Greene, J.D. Soc. Neurosci. doi:10.1080/17470919.2011.614000 (23 September 2011). · DOI
  36. Robinson, P.H., Kurzban, R. & Jones, O.D. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 60, 1634–1649 (2007).
  37. Henrich, J. et al. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010). · DOI
  38. Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M. & Newman, J.P. Neuropsychologia 48, 2198–2204 (2010). · DOI
  39. Rand, D.G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M.A. Science 325, 1272–1275 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Pinker, S. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Viking Penguin, New York, 2011).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Buckholtz, J. W., & Marois, R.
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-04-15
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
655-661
ISSN
  • 1097-6256
  • 1546-1726
DOI
10.1038/nn.3087
Cited by
286
References
9
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review