http://www.washington.uwc.edu/about/faculty/muryn_j/ECO%20203/16th_edition/wsj101504vengeance.pdf

Most examples of game thoery discussed in class are primarily concerned with players maximizing their payoff; however, what if we were to introduce a new factor in which players had the option of attacking other players based on their actions? This articles addresses the reasons behind the drive for so many individuals to take action into helping the poor and contributing to humanitarian efforts.

On a completely Machiavellian scale, one would assume that helping those in need had somethign to do with advancing some personal agenda in which they would be compensated for their efforts. The problem with this comes in the form of the “Good Samaritan” in which he desires no compensation and acts out of “pure altruism.” This idea of pure altruism makes little sense in economic theory as there seems to be no motivation in doing so; however, scientists have discovered that there is indeed a plausible motivating factor in altruism. “There are just enough people in society who are willing to punish anyone who does not contribute to the common good, even when it costs them to do so. Scientists call it “altruistic punishment.” But you can think of it as righteous vengeance.”

The articles goes on to explain a game in which there are multiple players who have the option of contributing a certain amount of money to a given cause in which they will be compensated double their contribution. The problem with this is freeloaders who contribute nothing but feed off of the generosity of others. An added option is the ability to punish other players at the cost of the attacking player. This seems to make no sense in economic theory as nobody’s payoff is being maximized but is infact being lowered. In many cases, it was found that the willingness to punish was nominal. The fact that these “avenging angels” are in the game make an incentive to contribute in order to escape punishment.

With regards to social networks, it could be best be summed up in the statement, “would-be freeloaders get the message that, if they fail to contribute to the common good, someone out there may nail them for it”