Reputation of Punishers Depends on the Situation: Sanction Intensity and Interaction Type

Punishment is considered crucial for maintaining large-scale cooperation, but its sustainability depends on whether punishers receive reputational gains. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the reputational consequences of punishment. This study systematically examined how punishers were recognized in terms of cooperation and competitiveness. We manipulated the type of intervention (punishment of non-cooperators and compensation for victims), the intensity (the fee-to-fine ratio), and whether punishers were victims or not. Participants evaluated punishers, compensators, and non-interveners in hypothetical third-party punishment (Study 1: N = 394) and social dilemma games (Study 2: N = 400) using web-based surveys in Japan. Across both studies, punishers were perceived as more competitive. In third-party punishment, lower-intensity punishment (restoring unfair outcomes) led to reduced perceptions of competitiveness. In contrast, in social dilemma contexts (i.e., where punishers were the victims), punishers were rated as more competitive and less cooperative than non-punishers, regardless of intensity. These results suggest that the reputational consequences of punishment depend strongly on situations, and punishers potentially gain a reputation as strong individuals rather than cooperative partners.