Cited by 26Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEmotions and Moral BehaviorBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

The impact of emotions and empathy-related traits on punishment behavior: introduction and validation of the inequality game

Open access
Klimecki, Olga M., Vuilleumier, Patrik, Sander, David·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

In the prevention and resolution of conflicts in social contexts, an important step is to understand how different emotions and empathic traits are linked to punishment behaviors. Unfortunately, few paradigms exist to study these phenomena. Here, we developed the Inequality Game (IG) as an economic and verbal interaction paradigm in which participants are faced with an "unfair other" as opposed to a "fair other" and subsequently have the opportunity to engage in a range of social behaviors. These social behaviors include cooperative or competitive economic choices and nice or derogatory verbal behavior toward the unfair and fair other. Participants could thus engage in punishment or forgiveness behavior toward the unfair other as well as in cooperative or aggressive behavior toward the fair other. We validated the IG through multimodal measures comprising the assessment of personality traits, emotions (by means of facial expressions and self-reports), arousal (by means of skin conductance responses), physical effort (force exertion), and behavioral reactions. Second, we examined the influence of emotions and empathy-related traits on punishment behavior. With regard to emotions, we observed a positive relation between malicious joy and punishment behavior. This result highlights the role of reward-related mechanisms in favoring punishment behavior. In addition, different empathic traits had opposing effects on antisocial behavior. Whereas personal distress predicted aggressive verbal behavior, perspective taking and empathic concern predicted a reduction in punishment behavior. Empathic traits also modulated emotional experience and person evaluations, such that perspective taking was related to more positive affect (less frowning and more smiling) and a more favorable evaluation of the unfair other. The current data validate the IG, reveal that malicious joy is positively related to punishment behavior, and show that different types of empathic traits can have opposing effects on antisocial behavior as well as on related emotions and person evaluations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0151028

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [9]Doob AN. Catharsis and aggression: The effect of hurting one's enemy. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1970; 4, 291– 296.
  2. [34]Ekman P. About brows: Emotional and conversational signals In: von Cranach M, Foppa K, Lepenies W, Ploog D, editors. Human ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979 pp. 169– 249.
  3. [39]Beck A, Steer R, Brown G. (1996). The Beck Depression Inventory–Second Edition Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  4. [43]Lieberman JD, Solomon S, Greenberg J, McGregor HA. A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggress Behav. 1999; 25(5): 331– 348.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klimecki, O. M., Vuilleumier, P., & Sander, D.
Affiliations
University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Klimecki, Olga M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-03-15
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e0151028
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2298778277
Cited by
26
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (FP7/2007-2013, 51NF40-104897)
  • European Commission (267171, 2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (104897, FP7/2007-2013, 51NF40)
  • Université de Genève (51NF40-104897)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
empathy, emotions, personal distress, perspective taking, empathic concern, antisocial behavior, aggression, forgiveness, cooperation, person evaluation, facial expressions, skin conductance, reward processing, conflict resolution
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Emotions, Empathy, Humans, Male, Social Justice, Young Adult

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