Is intuition really cooperative? Improved tests support the social heuristics hypothesis

Abstract

Understanding human cooperation is a major scientific challenge. While cooperation is typically explained with reference to individual preferences, a recent cognitive process view hypothesized that cooperation is regulated by socially acquired heuristics. Evidence for the social heuristics hypothesis rests on experiments showing that time-pressure promotes cooperation, a result that can be interpreted as demonstrating that intuition promotes cooperation. This interpretation, however, is highly contested because of two potential confounds. First, in pivotal studies compliance with time-limits is low and, crucially, evidence shows intuitive cooperation only when noncompliant participants are excluded. The inconsistency of test results has led to the currently unresolved controversy regarding whether or not noncompliant subjects should be included in the analysis. Second, many studies show high levels of social dilemma misunderstanding, leading to speculation that asymmetries in understanding might explain patterns that are otherwise interpreted as intuitive cooperation. We present evidence from an experiment that employs an improved time-pressure protocol with new features designed to induce high levels of compliance and clear tests of understanding. Our study resolves the noncompliance issue, shows that misunderstanding does not confound tests of intuitive cooperation, and provides the first independent experimental evidence for intuitive cooperation in a social dilemma using time-pressure.

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

“…In sum, our results support the conclusion of Capraro (2017) that time pressure increases honesty in the deception game studied here. This observation is in line with other work where participants can take actions which help or harm others, namely economic cooperation games (Everett et al 2017;Isler et al 2018;Rand 2016). We conclude by suggesting that the Social Heuristic Hypothesis (Bear & Rand, 2016;Peysakhovich & Rand 2016;Rand et al 2014Rand et al , 2016, whereby typically advantageous behaviors are internalized as intuitive defaults, may help explain why -and when -honesty is intuitive versus deliberative.…”

Time Pressure Increases Honesty in a Sender-Receiver Deception Game

“…In sum, our results support the conclusion of Capraro (2017a) that time pressure increases honesty in the sender-receiver game studied here. This observation is in line with other work where participants can take actions which help or harm others, namely economic cooperation games (Everett et al 2017;Isler et al 2018;Rand 2016). We conclude by suggesting that the Social Heuristic Hypothesis (Bear & Rand, 2016;Peysakhovich & Rand 2016;Rand et al 2014Rand et al , 2016, whereby typically advantageous behaviors are internalized as intuitive defaults, may help explain why -and when -honesty is intuitive versus deliberative.…”

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

“…Additionally, they also found that the same effect is present in the prisoner's dilemma played in a loss frame. A similar warm-up procedure was followed by Isler, Maule and Starmer (2018), who also found that time pressure increases cooperation. Some works have explored the role of potential moderators.…”