Rational Thought Can Override a Generous Intuition

Our instinct is to give, until we think about it logically

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Cooperation eases our way in the world, contributing to extraordinary and mundane human achievements alike. Yet even the nicest do-gooders sometimes act with self-interest. A study published recently in Nature sought to understand the mental processes that tip a person from generous to greedy. “By default are we selfish animals who have to exert willpower in order to cooperate?” asks David Rand, a psychologist at Harvard University who led the study. “Or are we predisposed to cooperate, but when we stop to think about it the greedy calculus of self-interest takes over?”

To peer into this aspect of human nature, Rand and his colleagues gave study participants 40 cents, then asked them to decide how much to keep for themselves and how much to donate to a common pool that would later be doubled and split evenly among those who donated. Those who quickly made up their minds donated more than those who took longer, suggesting that quick decisions based on intuition were more generous than slower, deliberative decisions.

In a follow-up study, researchers prompted participants either to trust their instincts or to mull them over when deciding. Consistent with the earlier finding, donations were higher for the intuition group.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This result suggests that our first impulse is to cooperate, but it does not necessarily mean we are genetically hardwired to do so, Rand says. Instead it may reflect a habit learned from a lifetime of fruitful cooperative experiences. The work also suggests that donation seekers would do well to leave their facts and statistics behind when courting potential donors—that pitch could backfire by promoting a ruminative, miserly mind-set.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe