De Quervain - The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment Flashcards
(12 cards)
What was the key finding of de Quervain et al.’s 2004 study on altruistic punishment?
Participants who punished defectors showed activation in the dorsal striatum, a reward-related brain region. This suggests that the act of punishing norm violators is inherently satisfying, potentially explaining why people engage in costly punishment behaviors.
What neuroimaging technique did de Quervain et al. use in their study?
They used Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with the radioligand [11C]raclopride, which binds to dopamine D2 receptors and allows measurement of dopamine release in the striatum.
What experimental paradigm did de Quervain et al. use to study altruistic punishment?
They used a trust game where subjects could punish partners who violated trust, with varying punishment conditions (free, costly, and symbolic punishment). This allowed them to isolate brain activity specifically related to punishment satisfaction rather than other aspects of the interaction.
Which specific brain region showed the strongest correlation with punishment behavior in de Quervain et al.’s study?
The caudate nucleus (part of the dorsal striatum) showed the strongest activation. Higher caudate activation was associated with greater punishment expenditure, suggesting a direct relationship between striatal reward activity and punishment behavior.
How did de Quervain et al. control for general negative emotions toward defectors?
They included a “symbolic punishment” condition where subjects could assign punishment points that didn’t affect the defector’s payoff. By comparing brain activity between effective and symbolic punishment conditions, they could isolate reward processing specific to actual punishment.
What did de Quervain et al. conclude about why people engage in altruistic punishment despite its costs?
They concluded that people derive satisfaction from punishing norm violators (demonstrated by striatal activation), and this satisfaction can outweigh the material costs of punishment. This “sweet taste of revenge” provides a proximate mechanism for the evolution of cooperation through altruistic punishment.
Which neurotransmitter did de Quervain et al. implicate in the reward processing during punishment?
Dopamine. Their findings of decreased [11C]raclopride binding potential during punishment indicates dopamine release, suggesting punishment activates the mesolimbic dopamine reward system.
How did the study measure the “anticipated satisfaction” from punishment?
They asked participants to rate their expected satisfaction from punishment on a scale. These self-reported anticipated satisfaction ratings positively correlated with caudate nucleus activation, providing convergent evidence for the rewarding nature of punishment.
What evolutionary explanation did de Quervain et al. suggest for the rewarding nature of punishment?
They proposed that the evolution of human cooperation required mechanisms to enforce social norms. By making punishment inherently satisfying (through linking it to reward systems), natural selection created a proximate mechanism motivating individuals to punish norm violators despite personal costs.
What was the key voxel-based statistical finding regarding caudate activation?
The peak voxel in the right caudate nucleus showed significantly decreased [11C]raclopride binding potential (p = 0.048, small volume corrected) during effective punishment compared to control conditions, indicating increased dopamine release.
What was the correlation value between punishment investment and caudate activation?
The study found a significant negative correlation (r = -0.69, p = 0.001) between punishment investment and caudate [11C]raclopride binding potential, meaning higher punishment expenditure was associated with greater dopamine release in the caudate.
How much could participants spend on punishment in the “costly punishment” condition?
In the costly punishment condition, participants could spend up to 10 MUs of their own money to reduce the defector’s payoff. Each MU spent on punishment reduced the defector’s payoff by 2 MUs.
