↓ Skip to main content

Spontaneous giving and calculated greed

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
551 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1262 Mendeley
citeulike
12 CiteULike
Title
Spontaneous giving and calculated greed
Published in
Nature, September 2012
DOI 10.1038/nature11467
Pubmed ID
Authors

David G. Rand, Joshua D. Greene, Martin A. Nowak

Abstract

Cooperation is central to human social behaviour. However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others. Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework. We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring 'rational' self-interest. To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games. We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative. Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions. Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection. To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous. We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism. Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 485 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 30 2%
United Kingdom 13 1%
Germany 11 <1%
Japan 7 <1%
Netherlands 6 <1%
France 6 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
Italy 5 <1%
Hungary 4 <1%
Other 35 3%
Unknown 1140 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 357 28%
Researcher 189 15%
Student > Master 186 15%
Student > Bachelor 164 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 66 5%
Other 242 19%
Unknown 58 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 558 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 155 12%
Social Sciences 93 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 77 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 56 4%
Other 212 17%
Unknown 111 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 696. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2020.
All research outputs
#9,412
of 14,179,788 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#1,356
of 71,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54
of 130,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#16
of 1,037 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,179,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 71,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 79.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,440 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,037 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.