Children punish third parties to satisfy both consequentialist and retributive motives

Marshall, J., Yudkin, D.A. & Crockett, M.J. 

Nat Hum Behav (2020). 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00975-9

Abstract

Adults punish moral transgressions to satisfy both retributive motives (such as wanting antisocial others to receive their ‘just deserts’) and consequentialist motives (such as teaching transgressors that their behaviour is inappropriate). Here, we investigated whether retributive and consequentialist motives for punishment are present in children approximately between the ages of five and seven. In two preregistered studies (N = 251), children were given the opportunity to punish a transgressor at a cost to themselves. Punishment either exclusively satisfied retributive motives by only inflicting harm on the transgressor, or additionally satisfied consequentialist motives by teaching the transgressor a lesson. We found that children punished when doing so satisfied only retributive motives, and punished considerably more when doing so also satisfied consequentialist motives. Together, these findings provide evidence for the presence of both retributive and consequentialist motives in young children.

Discussion

Overall, these two preregistered studies provide clear evidence for the presence of both consequentialist and retributive motives in young children, supporting the naive pluralism hypothesis. Our observations cohere with past research showing that children between the ages of five and seven are willing to engage in costly third-party punishment, and reveal the motives behind children’s punitive behaviour. Children reliably engaged in purely retributive punishment: they punished solely to make an antisocial other sad without any possibility of deterring future antisocial behaviour.  Children did not punish in the non-communicative condition out of a preference for locking iPads in boxes, shown by the fact that children punished less in the baseline control condition. Furthermore, non-communicative punishment could not be explained by erroneous beliefs that punishing would teach the transgressor a lesson.  This demonstrates that young children are not pure consequentialists. Rather, our data suggest that young children engaged in costly third-party punishment for purely retributive reasons.

Banned Devices; Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used To Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior

FDA Press Release
Posted March 5, 2020

Here is an excerpt:

After careful consideration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today published a final rule to ban electrical stimulation devices (ESDs) used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior because they present an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury that cannot be corrected or eliminated through new or updated device labeling.

“Since ESDs were first marketed more than 20 years ago, we have gained a better understanding of the danger these devices present to public health,” said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Through advancements in medical science, there are now more treatment options available to reduce or stop self-injurious or aggressive behavior, thus avoiding the substantial risk ESDs present.”

ESDs administer electrical shocks through electrodes attached to the skin of individuals to immediately interrupt self-injurious or aggressive behavior or attempt to condition the individuals to stop engaging in such behavior. Evidence indicates a number of significant psychological and physical risks are associated with the use of these devices, including worsening of underlying symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, burns and tissue damage. In addition, many people who are exposed to these devices have intellectual or developmental disabilities that make it difficult to communicate their pain. Evidence of the device’s effectiveness is weak and evidence supporting the benefit-risk profiles of alternatives is strong. As the risks presented by ESDs meet the agency’s definition of unreasonable and substantial and cannot be corrected or eliminated through new or updated labeling, banning the product is necessary to protect public health.

The act of banning a device is rare and the circumstances under which the agency can take this action is stringent, but the FDA has the authority to take this action when necessary to protect the health of the public. The FDA has only banned two other medical devices since gaining the authority to do so.

This final rule issued today follows a 2016 proposed rule to ban ESDs from the marketplace and takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The FDA understands that a gradual transition period may be needed for a subgroup of individuals currently exposed to these devices, to allow time for them to transition to another treatment, so the agency is establishing two compliance dates. For devices in use on specific individuals as of the date of publication and subject to a physician-directed transition plan, compliance is required 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. For all other devices, compliance is required 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

The FDA received more than 1,500 comments on the proposed rule, as well as approximately 300 comments submitted to the April 2014 FDA advisory panel meetingExternal Link Disclaimerdocket, which the FDA has associated with this rulemaking action. Comments were received from a variety of stakeholders, including parents of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, state agencies and their sister public-private organizations, the affected manufacturer and residential facility, some of the facility’s employees, and parents of individual residents. State and federal legislators also expressed interest, as did state and national advocacy groups. The overwhelming majority of comments supported this ban.

The proposed rule is here.

Why willpower is overrated

Brian Resnick
vox.com
Originally published January 15, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

What we can learn from people who are good at self-control

So who are these people who are rarely tested by temptations? They’re doing something right. Recent research suggests a few lessons we can draw from them.

1) People who are better at self-control actually enjoy the activities some of us resist — like eating healthy, studying, or exercising.

So engaging in these activities isn’t a chore for them. It’s fun.

“‘Want to’ goals are more likely to be obtained than ‘have to’ goals,” Milyavskaya said in an interview last year. “Want-to goals lead to experiences of fewer temptations. It’s easier to pursue those goals. It feels more effortless.”

If you’re running because you “have to” get in shape but find running to be a miserable activity, you’re probably not going to keep it up. An activity you like is more likely to be repeated than an activity you hate.

2) People who are good at self-control have learned better habits.

In 2015, psychologists Brian Galla and Angela Duckworth published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finding across six studies and more than 2,000 participants that people who are good at self-control also tend to have good habits — like exercising regularly, eating healthy, sleeping well, and studying.

“People who are good at self-control … seem to be structuring their lives in a way to avoid having to make a self-control decision in the first place,” Galla tells me. And structuring your life is a skill. People who do the same activity, like running or meditating, at the same time each day have an easier time accomplishing their goals, he says — not because of their willpower, but because the routine makes it easier.

The article is here.

Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?

Shlomo Benartzi, John Beshears, Katherine L. Milkman, and others
Psychological Science 
Vol 28, Issue 8, pp. 1041 - 1055
First Published June 5, 2017

Abstract

Governments are increasingly adopting behavioral science techniques for changing individual behavior in pursuit of policy objectives. The types of “nudge” interventions that governments are now adopting alter people’s decisions without coercion or significant changes to economic incentives. We calculated ratios of impact to cost for nudge interventions and for traditional policy tools, such as tax incentives and other financial inducements, and we found that nudge interventions often compare favorably with traditional interventions. We conclude that nudging is a valuable approach that should be used more often in conjunction with traditional policies, but more calculations are needed to
determine the relative effectiveness of nudging.

The article is here.

Actuaries are bringing Netflix-like predictive modeling to health care

By Gary Gau
STAT News
Originally published on December 13, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

In today’s ever-changing landscape, the health actuary is part clinician, epidemiologist, health economist, and statistician. He or she combines financial, operational, and clinical data, such as information from electronic medical records, pharmacy use, and lab results, to provide insights on both individual patients and overall population health.

I see a future where predictive modeling helps health care companies not only suggest healthy behaviors but also convince patients and consumers to adopt them. Predictive modeling techniques can be applied to information that can influence an individual’s decision to use preventive care, accurately take prescribed medication, book a doctor appointment, lose weight, or become more physically active.

The trick will be identifying the trigger that gets him or her to act.

Insurers must understand their patient populations, including the barriers they face to achieving better health. To create solutions, insurers must first understand the psychology of motivation and what leads individuals to change their behavior. That’s where the precision approach comes into play.

The article is here.

How the Brain Changes Its Mind

Emily Falk discusses concealed knowledge in the brain that can help predict what types of messages will be most effective in helping people change their behavior and reach their goals.





Note: This video describes an important method regarding how psychologists need to communicate to patients in order to enhance behavioral change.