New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe