The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.
The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate—processing speed—and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this influence—intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies, researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly (after at least 10 seconds had passed). In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern—whether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.
Taken together, these studies—7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.
Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentLooks like someone needs to read "The Selfish Gene" (1976) Richard Dawkins. Nice to see further confirmation of his thesis, but this isn't the surprise the title suggests ("after all").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better example of an early argument for instinctive human goodness than that of Rousseau's is given in Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is from a summary at the Adam Smith Institute website:
[The Theory Of Moral Sentiments was a real scientific breakthrough. It shows that our moral ideas and actions are a product of our very nature as social creatures. It argues that this social psychology is a better guide to moral action than is reason. It identifies the basic rules of prudence and justice that are needed for society to survive, and explains the additional, beneficent, actions that enable it to flourish.
Self-interest and sympathy. As individuals, we have a natural tendency to look after ourselves. That is merely prudence. And yet as social creatures, explains Smith, we are also endowed with a natural sympathy – today we would say empathy – towards others. When we see others distressed or happy, we feel for them – albeit less strongly. Likewise, others seek our empathy and feel for us. When their feelings are particularly strong, empathy prompts them to restrain their emotions so as to bring them into line with our, less intense reactions. Gradually, as we grow from childhood to adulthood, we each learn what is and is not acceptable to other people. Morality stems from our social nature.]
http://www.adamsmith.org/moral-sentiements
The full summary, and of course the actual book, is well worth a read. Note that Smith is being credited, justifiably in my opinion, with a scientific breakthrough. It seems the recent work reported here in SciAm was anticipated by well over two centuries.
I don't understand your comment about The Selfish Gene. I see nothing in common between this article and the book. Maybe you need to read the book?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is fascinating, but I think the only generalization that can come out of it is that the first impulse of humans living in America is cooperative. Until work is done cross-culturally, we don't know if this is a culturally specific behavior or a tendency from human evolution. When cross-cultural work is done, Western societies seem to consistently be outliers - as an <a href="http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_final02.pdf">Example</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBah - tried to hyperlink -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexample of work referenced:
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_final02.pdf
I have a problem with many of the statements made in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose that humans are described by the following statements. We evolved in tribes. Within tribes, we had repeated social interactions with the same people that were similar to the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and so we evolved tit-for-tat strategies. Also suppose reciprocal altruism and social reputation played parts in tendencies to "play well with others" for the sake of maximizing personal gain.
When we perceived somebody did us wrong we retaliated (tit-for-tat). If we think somebody stole from us we cut off their hands or kill them and possibly start a violent feud.
For people we perceived as out-group (other tribes) we either were violent with right away or required their niceness demonstrated before we'd cooperate.
Of course there is variation in the "sensitivity" of perceiving defection and the size of the response, and variations of free riding cheaters or, when desperate, use violence to take from others for our own benefit.
Suppose civilization changed this. We agree to back a collective enforcement who will investigate and judge guilt, use force, and confine he guilty. The added penalty of taking measures in our own hands helps make us cognitively override our instinct when we have perceived wrongs and call the police instead of beat them up. Since the state is now the "biggest guy in the room" we also don't have to judge if we can beat them or not. It also changes the cost of doing wrong in the first place. Add to this some social welfare help and desperation is lowered so in general violence, theft, and other crimes are reduced.
The above description is entirely consistent with the results of this study. We instinctively cooperate with those we perceive as in-group. But is the above description "good" or selfish? Is the proposed trait we cooperate to maximize our self-interest selfish or not? Is the fact that we are easy to set off and commit violence against perceived wrongs good, or bad? What about the xenophobia (and racism) of out-groups?
Further, given that the "Leviathan" of the collective state reduces our tendency to commit violence and crime, is Hobbes wrong? Given that this civilization didn't cause us to do bad as an override of our natural "goodness", isn't Rousseau wrong?
I'm not claiming this model is exactly right, but it doesn't seem far off. I don't see how claims like good, bad, selfish, or altruistic have value here, and it still firmly appears that Hobbes was more right than Rousseau.
I am surprised that no one seems to have picked up on Simon-Cohen's Science of Evil which seeks to quantify empathy (and lack of) on a bell curve. His work, presented in deceptively simple prose, shows wide variations in social behavior based on brain studies and, to my generally uninformed mind, pinpoints the differences in human behavior and, more important, their origin in what appear to be inherited characteristics. Anybody?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's in it for ME?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhenever I read about prisoner's dilemma games, they are always about penny ante stakes.
Do I want to look and (more importantly) feel like a scoundrel to gain 7 $, not likely! But, if Bill Gates put up 100000$, I might feel differently!
I am not surprised that we tend to cooperate, that is most likely how we as a species managed to survive and dominate the world, and our instincts lead us towards cooperation for the benefit of all.
Still, if the personal benefit is much higher than the benefit of being "good", I think the outcome might well be more selfcentered.
I try to be a decent person, helping out people
Gahh, forget the last sentence, it might be true, but t'was on another tack, which I dropped, way to much risk of osteoarthritis by patting myself on the back:-(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting - and important - point!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was studying social psychology, many years ago, there was a social psychology joke:
"What's difference between a psychologist and a social psychologist?"
"One studies rats in mazes, the other studies American students in mazes"
Of course, it has widened a little, in scope and in geography, but it was close to the bone in those days.
Amazing that this article can come to such a ridiculously contradictory conclusion to the studies it mentions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all what is done quickly is NOT what is most likely to be human nature. Setting a default response could conceivably be done at any time. And amazingly the article ignores the fact that the final study they mention implies just that: the default response is modified based on the subject's experience with cooperation. If cooperation is generally good for them they make it the default otherwise they don't.
What is the reason for completely ignoring the actual studies and then asserting they mean we are good after all? The studies imply that people prefer what they think is best for them 100% of the time. It just so happens that some of the time their ability to think through how much something helps them is limited by time and they go with their default: (a default that given the last study was not of their nature but rather learned for when they have no time to think).
When ever I hear evolutionary arguments applied, they typically don't account very well for theory and emphasize ideas more consistent with eugenics. If anything about human nature has emerged through history it's clear we have a need to live with and cooperate with others to survive and that will always involve some element of compromise to gain any advantage. There's also nothing about selfishness that negates the possibility of finding mutually beneficial solutions. I would be more suspicious of the cultural values and economic motivations of scientists that produce "survival of the fittest" theories. (P.S. No where in the Origins of Species does Darwin ever say, "survival of the fittest").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering your study suggests our overwhelming impulse is to cooperate, shouldn’t we replace our systems based on selfishness with cooperative systems and free ourselves from painful decisions & conflicts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight conflicting vectors of selfishness only remain because of promotions by the fewer prideful winners of power, not by the more numerous humble reflectors who already concluded (appearing to act impulsively) that cooperation is best for our species, including self?
Psychological studies are an interesting endeavor because they don't actually depict what people actually do when asked to donate time or money for a worthy cause be it helping one or many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn rapid fire emergencies it's natural to offer immediate assistance, yet single need cases or volunteer efforts it's different.
In my ten years of endeavors in working with four community groups in working toward improving the local environment to collecting donations for the needy I discovered there are some good folks who will offer time, or money or both, yet overall American's are a poor example of goodness in action.
Our overall attitude in America is that we are valued by a measure that we are what we own and it's clear, aid to many in serious need is very poor, unless it's disaster related.
But if we used a benchmark in asking - Am I my brothers keeper, the majority would respond in thought that it's not up to me and someone else will fill the gap.
And the proof of such could not be more apparent than taking note of funders in political endeavors who are extremely wealthy. They'll offer as much as $35 million dollars to a candidate used primarily for TV ads, but something far less to charities such as food banks for those who have an true need.
Though looking at global suicides at present it's also a good measure of demonstrating that when a need is known and known by people who are direct, they're failing time and again and it makes a grand statement as to how we're failing humanity on a broader scale than has been known in recent times.
Perhaps one should remember, actions speak louder than words and in a study where words are offered, it's not the same as action.
As some have mentioned, I also find the research presented in the article not decisive one way or the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall, I doubt that thinking along the lines of "do we help others because of the advantages it brings us" or "do we help others no matter how it affects us" is meaningful. But I do believe we are basically a very cooperative species, that the evidence for that is overwhelming.
Put another way, I think we help each other because of the advantages that brings to each other --that's social-- and it doesn't reduce to "am I doing it for myself or am I doing it for others".
Like someone else here at Scientific American suggested:"...cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded?" The answer has two levels of response, subconscious and conscious. The reward is ultimately the biological survival of the human species whether intuitively achieved at the subconscious level or as the result of a conscious choice from probable alternatives of adaptive decisions as detailed elsewhere*. Even subhuman species would rather cooperate for their biological survival as a species is at stake and pressed from both inheritance and environmentally acquired sources of information. We need to go beyond the biological and concentrate on the psycho-social aspect of 'existential living' to solve the riddle poised by the author, the choice between the intuitive reflex or the consciously controlled reflective behavior. A cursory reading of the expressed 'learned' responses shows that a majority intuitively agrees with the Hobbes' Leviathan interpretation where psycho-social pressures are in controlto guarantee the biological survival of the human species interpretation, what we have called the biopsychosocial (BPS) equilibrium in behalf of biological species survival exhibited as well by other subhuman mammals. But a careful dispassionate reflection on Hobbes formulation reveals it as an update of the Augustinian formulation representing 'divinity' to stand for the unknown explanation for real and relevant metaphysical correlates beyond human species sense-phenomenal and brain combinatorial capacities to resolve or even represent as symbolic or sentential logic for analysis. As elsewhere detailed* the erstwhile Augustinian 'divinity model' evolves and becomes the modern epistemological metaphysical logic model representation carefully rooted in falsifiable and logic parameters of probability of their occurrence as supported by quantum theoretical arguments as explained elsewhere.* At the mesoscopic, real time existential reality of our 4-d space-time experience, we have to reckon with the Ortega y Gasset's dictum "..man is him and his circumstances" justifying his existential need to substitute the Hobbes model for an intelligible theological substitute according to his genetic and acquired environmental circumstances. And perhaps more relevant, how do we know that the psychosocial element (psychic happiness and social acceptance)is controlling the responses of the participants in the study, consciously or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*See:
http://delasierra-sheffer.net/ID6-Internet-wz/Treatise%20final%20version.pdf
Interesting, and it corroborates the research I did at U of Colorado and Ohio State into the topic of "panic" when I wrote a book in the late 70s on the reaction of most persons to emergencies. Most psychologists and sociologists believed it depends on the speed of onset of a life-threatening emergency. Paralysis & occasional selfishness were more likely in sudden crises like historical flash floods in river valleys, and fires where victims can't escape through locked doors, but even then--as in the infamous Triangle Factory fire--there was a notable amount of altruism, entering areas of extreme danger and self-sacrifice. When a potentially fatal emergency develops over several minutes or a few hours--like the Titanic and the Japanese tsunami and radiation crises--altruism seems to prevail among most people, and it includes helping anyone, including strangers. A potentially mass-fatal long range emergency occurring more slowly--like the ecological failure crises which were my topic--can spur many to establish altruistic plans for helping great numbers, but it can also lull many into inaction and paralysis. However, panic is rare and altruism seems to prevail in nearly all life-threatening situations except (perhaps) in the long-range ones which lack immediacy. I'm long retired and unfamiliar with recent research. Any comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just sent a comment based on my study of panic and altruism in emergencies a few years ago. Why did it disappear? This happens with SciAm comments, even those well under the word limit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep in mind some people want everyone else to think that most people are good, so they can rip them off more easily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe topic relates to my idea from years back of a game that would better simulate real life, encouraging people to be good by being able to play for either personal points or community points, zero-sum or non-zero-sum. Personal points would mean you can play the game more effectively, but too few community points would mean a cascading loss for all. Getting a lot of community points result in a cascading win for all. It could also include immediate or distant gains or losses. Medium community points mean the game goes on forever. If you're a game designer, feel free to run with it.
In my neuropsychological research with 5000 patients I find that 'intuition' is a function of a competitively established greater competence in the right cerebral hemisphere. In all respects studied, the right hemisphere tends to be more tribally oriented than the left thereby reinforcing the concept of 'in-group' cooperation - it is also faster in decision making than the more analytically predisposed left hemisphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood or evil? Trials are now well underway to test for the potential for good within the human condition, by providing the choice and opportunity to discover new moral insight. They are open to all interested parties. The only prerequisite is having the critical self scrutiny to question the limits of human nature itself. More at http://www.energon.org.uk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks like Catholic church, Hobbes and Freud was wrong since their understanding of human nature was flawed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe results of these and other studies clearly indicate our intuitive behavior, developed from our social experiences, is to cooperate. I've seen results from toddler studies indicating even at that young age cooperative behavior is already apparent. You would think since this is a learned behavior it is likely that someone born into a minimally social environment will have minimal cooperative instincts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne area where I disagree with the article is cooperation itself should not be automatically judged as "good". If a person cooperates with a group by harming others then certainly those being harmed will not see the cooperation as good. History and current events have numerous examples of people cooperating with "evil".
Also, I hope these results do not lead people to think intuition is good and reason is bad. In reality we need to go with our intuition but learn to identify when addition thinking and consideration is needed. In this way we learn how to be cooperative without being easily manipulated. We work together but also bring up concerns and have an expectation such concerns are addressed. We learn to identify situations where harm to us or others is possible so we stop to think before acting.
Lastly, I think we should stop trying to put value judgements on humanity. We do have a desire to have simple explanations for complex systems to make it easier for us to understand our world. However, human behavior is messy and bound by time and context. Our behavior can be "good" one second and "bad" the next or both at the same time. Instead, lets focus on valuing both cooperation and individual contributions while making positive contributions to making the world a better place.