The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cooperation, Fast and Slow: Meta-Analytic Evidence for a Theory of Social Heuristics and Self-Interested Deliberation
Abstract
Does cooperating require the inhibition of selfish urges? Or does “rational” self-interest constrain cooperative impulses? I investigated the role of intuition and deliberation in cooperation by meta-analyzing 67 studies in which cognitive-processing manipulations were applied to economic cooperation games (total N = 17,647; no indication of publication bias using Egger’s test, Begg’s test, or p-curve). My meta-analysis was guided by the social heuristics hypothesis, which proposes that intuition favors behavior that typically maximizes payoffs, whereas deliberation favors behavior that maximizes one’s payoff in the current situation. Therefore, this theory predicts that deliberation will undermine pure cooperation (i.e., cooperation in settings where there are few future consequences for one’s actions, such that cooperating is not in one’s self-interest) but not strategic cooperation (i.e., cooperation in settings where cooperating can maximize one’s payoff). As predicted, the meta-analysis revealed 17.3% more pure cooperation when intuition was promoted over deliberation, but no significant difference in strategic cooperation between more intuitive and more deliberative conditions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033242 · Cited by 1,500 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, p -curve analysis (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014), using p -curve app 4.03 (accessed at www.p-curve.com/app4/pcurve4.php), indicated the presence of strong evidential value, p .0001 for both full and half p -curves, and did not find indications of inadequate evidential value, p…”
InfluentialSpontaneous giving and calculated greed
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11467 · Cited by 1,334
Self-citationTwo Key Steps in the Evolution of Human Cooperation: The Interdependence Hypothesis
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., & Herrmann, E. (2012) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/668207 · Cited by 738
Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0025391 · Cited by 557
Self-citationHumans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable
Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5939 · Cited by 426
Self-citationUsing Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes
Chandler, J., Paolacci, G., Peer, E., Mueller, P., & Ratliff, K. A. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615585115 · Cited by 185
Cited by
Statistical physics of human cooperation
Perc, M., Jordan, J. J., Rand, D. G., Wang, Z., Boccaletti, S., & Szolnoki, A. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.05.004 · Cited by 1,590
Self-citationThe Origins and Psychology of Human Cooperation
Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-081920-042106 · Cited by 457
Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects
Kvarven, A., Strømland, E., & Johannesson, M. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z · Cited by 271
Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter
Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0 · Cited by 175
Self-citationSocial rewards: From basic social building blocks to complex social behavior
Tamir, D. I., & Hughes, B. L. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618776263 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Rand, D. G.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-20
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1192-1206
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W3121198697
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 121.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cooperation, Fast and Slow: Meta-Analytic Evidence for a Theory of Social Heuristics and Self-Interested Deliberation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0956797616654455
- The paper
- Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, Fast and Slow: Meta-Analytic Evidence for a Theory of Social Heuristics and Self-Interested Deliberation. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654455
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
