Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Experience with anonymous interactions reduces intuitive cooperation

Subjects

Abstract

The Social Heuristics Hypothesis claims that cooperation is intuitive because it is positively reinforced in everyday life, where behaviour typically has reputational consequences1,2. Consequently, participants will cooperate in anonymous laboratory settings unless they either reflect on the one-shot nature of the interaction or learn through experience with such settings that cooperation does not promote self-interest. Experiments reveal that cognitive-processing manipulations (which increase reliance on either intuition or deliberation) indeed affect cooperation3, but may also introduce confounds4,5. Here, we elide the interpretation issues created by between-subjects designs in showing that people are less cooperative over time in laboratory paradigms in which cooperation cannot promote self-interest, but are just as cooperative over time in paradigms that have the potential to promote self-interest. Contrary to previous findings6,7, we find that cooperation is equally intuitive for men and women: unilateral giving did not differ across gender at the first study session, and decreased equally for both genders across sessions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

All data are available at https://osf.io/jckvq/.

References

  1. 1.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Yamagishi, T., Terai, S., Kiyonari, T., Mifune, N. & Kanazawa, S. The social exchange heuristic: managing errors in social exchange. Ration. Soc. 19, 259–291 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rand, D. G. Cooperation, fast and slow: meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1192–1206 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bouwmeester, S. et al. Registered replication report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 527–542 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Capraro, V. & Cococcioni, G. Rethinking spontaneous giving: extreme time pressure and ego-depletion favor self-regarding reactions. Sci. Rep. 6, 27219 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rand, D. G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A., Capraro, V. & Barcelo, H. Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 389–396 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. Econ. J. 108, 726–735 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kiyonari, T., Tanida, S. & Yamagishi, T. Social exchange and reciprocity: confusion or a heuristic? Evol. Hum. Behav. 21, 411–427 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barclay, P. Harnessing the power of reputation: strengths and limits for promoting cooperative behaviors. Evol. Psychol. 10, 868–883 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Binmore, K. & Shaked, A. Experimental economics: where next? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 73, 87–100 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 6, 347–369 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. & McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yamagishi, T. et al. Cortical thickness of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex predicts strategic choices in economic games. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5582–5587 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cappelen, A. W., Nielsen, U. H., Tungodden, B., Tyran, J.-R. & Wengström, E. Fairness is intuitive. Exp. Econ. 19, 727–740 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M. & Rand, D. Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games. Exp. Econ. 16, 349–371 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cain, D. M., Dana, J. & Newman, G. E. Giving versus giving in. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8, 505–533 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Franzen, A. & Pointner, S. Anonymity in the dictator game revisited. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 74–81 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13335–13340 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Krasnow, M. M., Delton, A. W., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. Meeting now suggests we will meet again: implications for debates on the evolution of cooperation. Sci. Rep. 3, 1747 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rand, D. G. & Kraft-Todd, G. T. Reflection does not undermine self-interested prosociality. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 300 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rand, D. G. et al. Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nat. Commun. 5, 3677 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gregorich, S. E. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med. Care 44, S78–S94 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rand, D. G. & Epstein, Z. G. Risking your life without a second thought: intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLoS One 9, e109687 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S. & Fehr, E. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 71, 397–404 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M. & Trachtman, H. Avoiding the ask: a field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. J. Polit. Econ. 125, 625–653 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Isler, O., Maule, J. & Starmer, C. Is intuition really cooperative? Improved tests support the social heuristics hypothesis. PLoS One 13, e0190560 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Everett, J. A., Ingbretsen, Z., Cushman, F. & Cikara, M. Deliberation erodes cooperative behavior—even towards competitive out-groups, even when using a control condition, and even when eliminating selection bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 73, 76–81 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & Van Heerden, J. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychol. Rev. 110, 203–219 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kawakami, K., Dunn, E., Karmali, F. & Dovidio, J. F. Mispredicting affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science 323, 276–278 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A. E-Prime: User’s Guide (Psychology Software Incorporated, Pittsburgh, 2002).

  31. 31.

    Johnson, N. D. & Mislin, A. A. Trust games: a meta-analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 32, 865–889 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. Mplus User’s Guide (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, 2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (award no. 29165) to M.E.M. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-18-2-0194. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.E.M., W.H.B.M., E.J.P. and D.E.F. conceived of the study. E.J.P., D.E.F. and W.H.B.M. programmed the study, and W.H.B.M. managed data collection. D.E.F. and W.H.B.M. analysed the data and interpreted results. W.H.B.M. drafted the manuscript. W.H.B.M., D.E.F., E.J.P. and M.E.M. revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. McCullough.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Notes

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McAuliffe, W.H.B., Forster, D.E., Pedersen, E.J. et al. Experience with anonymous interactions reduces intuitive cooperation. Nat Hum Behav 2, 909–914 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0454-9

Download citation

Further reading

Search

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