Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Spontaneous giving and calculated greed


Cooperation is central to human social behaviour1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others. Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring ‘rational’ self-interest. To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games. We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative. Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions. Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection. To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous. We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism. Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Faster decisions are more cooperative.
Figure 2: Inducing intuitive thinking promotes cooperation.
Figure 3: Evidence that cooperative intuitions from daily lift spill over into the laboratory.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Trivers, R. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fudenberg, D. & Maskin, E. The folk theorem in repeated games with discounting or with incomplete information. Econometrica 54, 533–554 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437, 1291–1298 (2005)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S. & Richerson, P. J. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3531–3535 (2003)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Milinski, M., Semmann, D. & Krambeck, H. J. Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature 415, 424–426 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rockenbach, B. & Milinski, M. The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment. Nature 444, 718–723 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M. A. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325, 1272–1275 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415, 137–140 (2002)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S. & Christakis, N. A. Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19193–19198 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sloman, S. A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 119, 3–22 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. Individual differences in rational thought. J. Exp. Psychol. 127, 161–188 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (Guilford, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kahneman, D. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am. Psychol. 58, 697–720 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Plessner, H., Betsch, C. & Betsch, T. Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Straus and Giroux, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol. Rev. 84, 127–190 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, E. K. & Cohen, J. D. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 167–202 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G. & Zeckhauser, R. J. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Exp. Econ. 14, 399–425 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pfeiffer, T., Tran, L., Krumme, C. & Rand, D. G. The value of reputation. J. R. Soc. Interface (20 June 2012)

  21. Fudenberg, D., Rand, D. G. & Dreber, A. Slow to anger and fast to forgive: cooperation in an uncertain world. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 720–749 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M. A. Winners don't punish. Nature 452, 348–351 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G. & Greene, J. D. Divine intuition: cognitive style influences belief in God. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.. 141, 423–428 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Benhabib, J. & Bisin, A. Modeling internal commitment mechanisms and self-control: a neuroeconomics approach to consumption–saving decisions. Games Econ. Behav. 52, 460–492 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Fudenberg, D. & Levine, D. K. A. Dual-self model of impulse control. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 1449–1476 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G. & Cohen, J. D. Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science 306, 503–507 (2004)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. in The Economy as a Evolving Complex System 3 (eds Blume, L. and Durlauf, S. N. ). 339–364 (2002)

  28. Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. (Univ. Chicago Press, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311, 1301–1303 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bowles, S. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320, 1605–1609 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank H. Ahlblad, O. Amir, F. Fu, O. Hauser, J. Horton and R. Kane for assistance with carrying out the experiments, and P. Blake, S. Bowles, N. Christakis, F. Cushman, A. Dreber, T. Ellingsen, F. Fu, D. Fudenberg, O. Hauser, J. Jordan, M. Johannesson, M. Manapat, J. Paxton, A. Peysakhovich, A. Shenhav, J. Sirlin-Rand, M. van Veelen and O. Wurzbacher for discussion and comments. This work was supported in part by a National Science Foundation grant (SES-0821978 to J.D.G.). D.G.R. and M.A.N. are supported by grants from the John Templeton Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



D.G.R., J.D.G. and M.A.N. designed the experiments, D.G.R. carried out the experiments and statistical analyses, and D.G.R., J.D.G. and M.A.N. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David G. Rand.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text 1-15, Supplementary Figures 1-3, Supplementary Tables 1-18 and additional references (See page 1 for details). (PDF 1622 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rand, D., Greene, J. & Nowak, M. Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489, 427–430 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing