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

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
    • 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.
    • References:
      Science. 2008 Mar 7;319(5868):1362-7. (PMID: 18323447)
      Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):413-25. (PMID: 23856025)
      J Theor Biol. 2000 Sep 21;206(2):169-79. (PMID: 10966755)
      Nat Commun. 2014 Apr 22;5:3677. (PMID: 24751464)
      Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):600-4. (PMID: 26168118)
      Am Psychol. 2003 Sep;58(9):697-720. (PMID: 14584987)
      Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390-6. (PMID: 7466396)
      Psychol Sci. 2016 Sep;27(9):1192-206. (PMID: 27422875)
      Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 26;113(4):936-41. (PMID: 26755603)
      Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8. (PMID: 16251955)
      Nature. 2013 Jun 6;498(7452):E1-2; discussion E2-3. (PMID: 23739429)
      Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Feb;8(2):60-5. (PMID: 15588809)
      Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:279-300. (PMID: 17550343)
      Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Sep 03;8:300. (PMID: 25232309)
      Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 May;12 (3):527-542. (PMID: 28475467)
      Psychol Rev. 1996 Oct;103(4):650-69. (PMID: 8888650)
      Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Oct;7(10):454-9. (PMID: 14550493)
      Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Mar 29;284(1851):. (PMID: 28330915)
      Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38. (PMID: 13310708)
      Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Jul 22;282(1811):null. (PMID: 26156762)
      Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 03;6:36079. (PMID: 27808222)
      Nat Commun. 2014 Sep 16;5:4939. (PMID: 25225950)
      Nature. 2012 Sep 20;489(7416):427-30. (PMID: 22996558)
      Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 May;12 (3):543-547. (PMID: 28544864)
      J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):17-52. (PMID: 5875340)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20180106 Date Completed: 20180215 Latest Revision: 20181113
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      PMC5755815
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0190560
    • Accession Number:
      29304055