Social Heuristics and Social Roles: Intuition Favors Altruism for Women but Not for Men

12 Pages·2016·0.27 MB·English

JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General ©2016AmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2016,Vol.145,No.3,000 0096-3445/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154
BRIEF REPORT
Social Heuristics and Social Roles: Intuition Favors Altruism for
Women but Not for Men
David G. Rand and Victoria L. Brescoll Jim A. C. Everett
YaleUniversity OxfordUniversity
y. Valerio Capraro Hélène Barcelo
s.adl CenterforMathematicsandComputerScience, MathematicalSciencesResearchInstitute,Berkeley,CA
herbro Amsterdam,theNetherlands
s
blied
punat
dmi
salliedisse Awrheerheubmyainntsuiitnivtueitrievseplyonasletrsufiastvioc,rotyrpdicoaelslyaslturcucisemssfruelqbueirheavsieolrfs-c,osnutgrgoel?stsAththateothryeaonfsswoecriamlahyeudreispteicnsd,
ite
ofob onwhoyouare.Inparticular,evidencesuggeststhatwomenareexpectedtobehavealtruistically,and
et arepunishedforfailingtobealtruistic,toamuchgreaterextentthanmen.Thus,women(butnotmen)
onnot mayinternalizealtruismastheirintuitiveresponse.Indeed,ameta-analysisof13newexperimentsand
oris 9experimentsfromothergroupsfoundthatpromotingintuitionrelativetodeliberationincreasedgiving
ciationerand iwnaasDshiocwtantortoGbaemmeoadmeorantgedwboymeexnp,lbicuittnseoxtarmoloenigdemnteinfic(aSttiuodny(S1,tuNdy(cid:2)2,4,N36(cid:2)6).1F,8u3r1th):ertmheorme,ortheisweofmfeecnt
os
ssu describedthemselvesusingtraditionallymasculineattributes(e.g.,dominance,independence)relativeto
alAdual traditionallyfeminineattributes(e.g.,warmth,tenderness),themoredeliberationreducedtheiraltruism.
ologicindivi Osoucriaflinhdeiunrgisstischsedinlihguhmtoanntphreoscoocninaelictyti.onbetweengenderandaltruism,andhighlighttheimportanceof
he
ch
Psyoft Keywords:altruism,prosociality,intuition,dualprocess,gender
ne
caus Supplementalmaterials:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154.supp
erial
mn
Aso
eer
hp
ythe Humans often choose to help others. Yet such prosociality 2003; Sloman, 1996). Does prosociality require deliberative self-
bt
yrightedolelyfor tmiynpatekirceeassltluysinrweqielxulipinrlegosrtionugsdothosuome?xapRneencpderontstilomyc,eiat,hlieetfryfeouhrtsa,isnagbnedeanmdcouonanelsyipd.reoWrcaebhslaest cseolnTft-hrioneltS,erooecrsitad?loHperuorsiosctiicaslHimyppuoltsheessigse(tSrHeiHne)dhaisnbbeyenthperocpaolcsueldusasoaf
ps
coed perspective (for a review, see Zaki & Mitchell, 2013), where theoretical framework for answering this question (Peysakhovich
sd
mentiinten dtweceiesniocnosganrietivceonpcroecpetussaeliszethdatasarreesauulttoinmgatfirco,mfascto,manpdetiitnitounitibvee-, &proRcaenssd,le2n0s15to;Rthaenodrieetsarle.,g2a0rd1i4n)g.TthheeaSdHopHtiaodndosfatnyepxicpallilcyitlaydvdauna-l
docucleis versusthosethatarecontrolled,slow,anddeliberative(Kahneman, tageousbehaviors(e.g.,theoriesbasedon“spillover”effects[Ki-
hisarti yonari,Tanida,&Yamagishi,2000],norminternalization[Chudek
Ts &Henrich,2011],andconsequencesofinterdependenceinone’s
hi
T social interaction experiences [Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten, &
Joireman,1997]).TheSHHpositsthatthesocialstrategieswhich
DavidG.Rand,DepartmentsofPsychologyandEconomics,andSchool
are typically successful in daily life become automatized specifi-
ofManagement,YaleUniversity;VictoriaL.Brescoll,SchoolofManage-
cally as intuitive responses. Deliberation can then override these
ment, Yale University; Jim A. C. Everett, Department of Experimental
Psychology,OxfordUniversity;ValerioCapraro,CenterforMathematics intuitions and adjust one’s behavior in light of the details of the
and Computer Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Hélène Barcelo, specificdecisionathand.
MathematicalSciencesResearchInstitute,Berkeley,CA. Inparticular,theSHHarguesthatakeycomponentofdeliber-
Funding by the John Templeton Foundation and the National Science ation is the consideration of strategic concerns and payoff maxi-
Foundation (Grant 0932078000) is gratefully acknowledged. We also
mization,whichfavorsself-interestedbehavior.Asaresult,delib-
thanktheauthorsofthestudiesincludedinourmeta-analysisforsharing
eration is predicted to sometimes undermine prosocial intuitions,
theirdata.
butnottopushselfishintuitionstowardprosociality.Amathemat-
CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoDavidG.
Rand, Department of Psychology, Yale University, Box 208205, New ical model of dual-process agents playing Prisoner’s Dilemma
Haven,CT06520-8205.E-mail:[email protected] gamesformalizesthisprediction(Bear&Rand,2016):amongall
1
2 RAND,BRESCOLL,EVERETT,CAPRARO,ANDBARCELO
possible strategies, the dual-process strategies that perform best behaving altruistically in accordance with others’ expectations is
(andthusarefavoredbyevolution,sociallearning,and/orstrategic typicallyadvantageousforwomen.
decision-making) use deliberation to switch from cooperation to Second, the fact that women disproportionately occupy roles
defection in one-shot anonymous settings. Conversely, strategies that either mandate self-sacrificing and altruistic behavior (e.g.,
that use deliberation to switch from defection to cooperation mother)or,attheveryleast,requireagreatdealofother-oriented,
(under any circumstances) never perform well, and are always communalbehavior(e.g.,nurse;Eagly,1987),maycausewomen
disfavored. to habituate to being altruistic. And even women who do not
By this account, where typically successful strategies are intu- explicitlyoccupysuchfamilyorworkrolesmayacquirealtruistic
itive, intuition should favor cooperation for most people: in the intuitivesocialresponsesbecausefemalepeergroupsaremarkedly
context of daily life, most important interactions (e.g., with co- more communal and egalitarian than male peer groups, and thus
workers,friends,andfamily)arerepeated.Thus,becausecooper- make self-sacrificing, unselfish behavior socially adaptive (Mac-
ationisnon-zero-sum,cooperatingcanbeinone’slong-runself- coby, 1998). Taken together, consideration of both the expecta-
interest: cooperating with others today can induce others to tionsofothersandthebehaviorsoneengagesinregularlypointto
y. cooperate with you in the future (Rand & Nowak, 2013). Con- intuitionfavoringaltruismforwomenmoresothanmen.
shers.broadl vareersneolyt,ewnohuegnhintoterianccteinngtiviinzesectotionpgesrawtihoenre(ef.gu.t,uroenec-osnhsoetqauneonncyes- itioInnathnidsdpealipbeerr,awtioeneixnpaelrtirmuiesnmta,lalnydinthveesptoigteantetidalthmeodroelreatoinfginrotule-
publinated mous laboratory experiments), it is never in one’s self-interest to ofgender.InStudy1,ameta-analysisof22givingstudieswhere
dmi cooperate;and,therefore,deliberationshouldfavorselfishness.As cognitive processing was manipulated revealed the predicted in-
salliedisse patrievdeicttoeddbeylibtehriastaiocncovuinat,teimxpeerpirmesesnutarellyorpraomcoonticnegptiunatulitpiorinmrienlg- tienrgacintitounitiboentwineecnrecaosegdniatilvtreuipsrmoceinsswinogmmeondbeuatnhdagdennodesri:gpnriofimcaont-t
ite
ofob exercise has been found to increase cooperation on average in effectinmen.Study2theninvestigatedthemechanismbehindthis
oneott one-shot anonymous interactions (Cone & Rand, 2014; Lotz, effect by examining whether identification with gender norms
orsn 2015; Protzko, Ouimette, & Schooler, 2015; Rand, Greene, & moderatedthesexdifferencesfoundinStudy1.
i
ationand Nanoawlyaskis,,2s0e1e2R;Ranadnde,tNale.w(m20a1n4,)&. Wurzbacher,2015);forameta- Study 1
cier
sous The implications of the SHH for altruism (unilaterally giving
s
ologicalAindividual rnsehasororuoulwrdcedrsiesatfodavoootfrhteahrlestr)u,SihHsomHw:estvruaegnrg,sefrseetrmsriatnhignatmu,nolicnkleeeyadrte.olOisbnoemrtaheteioononen,eainnhtdaunittdhio,enna MIenthSotuddy1,weconductedameta-analysis(N(cid:2)4,366)ofnew
he havingthemtransferitbackdoesnotmakeonebetteroffthanjust and existing studies looking at the effects of experimentally ma-
ch
yt
Psof keepingtheoriginalmoney,andsoaltruism(unlikecooperation)is nipulatingtheuseofintuitionversusdeliberationongivinginthe
ne not advantageous even in repeated games. On the other hand, a Dictator Game (DG). In the DG, participants unilaterally decide
as
cu
erial broaderinterpretationoftheSHHsuggeststhatintuitionmayfavor how to divide actual money between themselves and an anony-
Amson altruisminasimilarwaytowhathasbeenobservedwithcooper- mous recipient. Across studies, we used the percentage of the
eer ation. If being selfish in the context of zero-sum interactions is endowmentgiventotherecipientasourmeasureofaltruism.
hp
ythe seen negatively by others, it may create reputational costs in the Tominimizefile-drawereffects,webeganbyincludingalldata
bt
yrightedolelyfor ccbooenuttlhedexbtceaospfeaoytthohafeftram(lnlaoxpniem-ozpiezlrieon-agsrueinmh)tahriemntleeodrnagcfrtroiuomnn.sb.HeIiofnwgsoesv,eetehrn,einatsmasltaerylufiinssomht, ec(iaoncgchnluiotdifvinethgpefraoaiucleethsdosiprnsigloowtfsa,thseexmppaerneriismpeuneltnasttsetudwdiyinthhaapzdreorebovl-eesrmumcaotidlcliecdctteaestdoigrwnghafmeeraee-
ps
coed such that moderators may exist for whether altruism is advanta- tures, etc.). We had 13 such experiments (all previously unpub-
isnd geousindailylife(andthusfavoredbyintuition). lished), each of which manipulated cognitive processing using
entnte A particularly compelling candidate for such moderation is either time constraints or conceptual priming. To avoid selection
mi
docucleis gheanvdeear.ltrSupisemcifiacsaltlhye,irwientmuiitgivhet seoxcpieacltrewsopmonesne, fbourttnwoot rmeaesno,ntso. estfrfaeicnttss,.we included participants who disobeyed the time con-
hisarti First,alargebodyofworksuggeststhatthebehaviorofmenand Reducing the amount of time subjects have to decide shortens
Ts
hi women is governed by stereotypes concerning their social roles; the window of opportunity for deliberation to rein in intuition,
T
and in particular that women are expected to be communal and leading to more intuitive decisions (Wright, 1974). Therefore, in
unselfish,whereasmenareexpectedtobeagenticandindependent the time constraint experiments, reliance on intuition was in-
(Eagly,1987).Whenwomenbehaveinwaysthatareperceivedas creased by asking subjects to make their giving decision in less
insufficientlycommunal,theyarenotonlylikedless,buttheyare than a specified number of seconds (time pressure) and was
alsolesslikelytobehelped,hired,promoted,paidfairly,andgiven reducedbyaskingsubjectstowaitandthinkforatleastaspecified
status, power, and independence in their jobs (Heilman & number of seconds before deciding (time delay). The conceptual
Okimoto, 2007). Thus, women are subject to much stronger ex- priming conditions, on the other hand, used a writing exercise at
pectations that they will behave altruistically (Heilman & Chen, the outset of the experiment to induce more or less intuitive
2005). Furthermore, recent work has found that women are well decision making (Shenhav, Rand, & Greene, 2012). Reliance on
aware of these gender stereotype-based behavioral prescriptions, intuitionwasincreasedbyaskingsubjectstowriteaboutatimein
andtheirconcernoverencounteringbacklasheffectsfromviolat- theirlifewherefollowingtheirintuitionworkedoutwell,orwhere
ing these stereotypes helps explain, in part, a range of behaviors carefully reasoning through a problem worked out poorly. Reli-
that systematically vary by gender (Brescoll, 2011). As a result, anceonintuitionwasdecreasedbyaskingsubjectstowriteabout
INTUITIONFAVORSALTRUISMFORWOMENBUTNOTFORMEN 3
a time in their life where following their intuition worked out mechanism. Specifically, if sex differences in the relationship
poorly, or where carefully reasoning through a problem worked between intuition, deliberation, and altruism are driven by social
outwell. norms associated with men and women’s social roles, then indi-
We also included data from other labs by doing a comprehen- vidualdifferencesintheextenttowhichpeopleadoptsuchsexrole
sive database search and requesting raw data (including gender) normsshouldmoderatethisrelationship.Inparticular,forwomen,
forexperimentsinwhichcognitiveprocessingwasmanipulatedin explicit self-identification with traditionally masculine attributes
dictatorgameswiththestandardsetupof(a)asingleanonymous waspredictedtoinfluencedeliberativeresponsesbutnotintuitive
recipient,and(b)adecisionspacerangingfromcompletelyselfish responses.
to completely altruistic. For cognitive process manipulations, in Women who identify with masculine attributes are still per-
additiontotimepressureandconceptualpriming,wealsoincluded ceivedbytheworldaswomen,andthusaresubjecttothealtruistic
experiments that used cognitive load (where participants had to expectations placed upon women (making altruism typically ad-
engage in a more or less cognitively demanding task, such as vantageous for them). Since intuitive responses are not within
holding a 7-digit vs. 3-digit number in working memory, while one’sconsciouscontrol,butinsteadimplementtypicallyadvanta-
y. completingtheDG).1
publishers.natedbroadl (loBpeI,nnj2at0om1tai1nl,;,BwErevoawrnensc,,e&i2v0eS1d4h;adpaHitraoa,usg2eet0s,13fBo;rrCeknokirnnee,eliJasodshednaitn,iosDsnoeanwl,iettJxeop,he&arinmsWseonantrs-- gewexneoop’msulisceiinntbtlwuyeihhtaiaovdveeoioxprrptsel,simcptioahtlnseycsueiidslnietnunsehittioifavyutetlwrdibrietbuhsetpefoesmmnssoihernsoeinuoealdflatrtbeutrveiisebtnaiucstewstah;olatamrnnuedinsmtwiecwonmh’asos-,
sallieddissemi SSpatteurtndimcyipa1nan,at&gsg(rS5e2vg.ea7dt%esdätfederma,t2aa0lef1r,4oM;mK2in2(cid:2)nuexn2pe9ne.8ri)&m.(eWPnlteisna,dsfemosraenaen,oton2tl0ainl1e3o)fs.uT4p,hp3ul6es6-, rfeegmairndilneessaottfriwbuhteetsh.erwomenidentifymorewithmasculineversus
ite age Whendeliberating,however,explicitgenderroleidentificationwas
ofob mental material Table S1, which provides details for each experi- predictedtoinfluencewomen’saltruism:womenwhoidentifiedmore
oneott ment). with masculine attributes were predicted to shift in the direction of
n
oris men(i.e.,tobecomelessaltruistic),becausealtruismisdisfavoredby
ationand Results and Discussion both (a) masculine gender roles (which involve power, dominance,
cier andindependentself-interest)and(b)deliberation’sgeneraltendency
ssous Aspredicted,random-effectsmeta-analysisofDGgivingfound tomakepeopleconsiderstrategicself-interest.
Aal asignificantinteractionbetweengenderandcognitiveprocessing
hologicaleindividu c3ma.6oti6do,en,pbei(cid:2)fafse.c(0Et0gs0ig1zeer(’s5se.et5esFpti,egrtuc(cid:2)reen(cid:3)t1a).g.2e8T,phpoeir(cid:2)netsw.7,a99s;5Bn%oegCegvI’isd[t2ee.ns6ct,,ez8o.(cid:2)5f],p(cid:3)uZ.b3l(cid:2)1i-, oaltthWreurioshmmae,nnda,wnddheolairebexeprialnitcivicteollynyfildeicmetnbtwirfayicthewtitrthhaeitfsesmethlifan-tiinnateereraetcstrtoienbdsuitseetfsef,neoctntwstihothef
ch
nPsyeoft apcr(cid:2)oss.76st)u,doierso,fchhie2t(e2r1o)ge(cid:2)ne1it6y.0i4n,tphe(cid:2)tru.7e7.siFzeurothfetrhmisorien,temraecttairoen- sbterhataevgiiocr dinelitbheeraDtioGn..FTohrusth,edeslaimbeerarteioansosnh,omulednnwothoaffeexcptlitchiteliyr
as
eAmericersonalu pgtwree(cid:2)sesnio.s8nt3ufdo(iiuensntderuranncotoinosilnginneeiffvifceeacrnst:uts6di.in1fftehpreeenrpccheeynsitnaicgaienltlpearobaiocnrttaisotonirnye,flftae(cid:2)bc,t.b25e2.4-, isFdeielnfnaitslilhfyy,inwftouirtihtimofneesnmitwnoihnboeeciadottemrniebtiufmyteoswresihthaolutmrlduaissactliuscolinwnehoetantotrvdibeeurlritibedese,rattthhineegiirr.
hp
ythe percentage points online); and no significant differences in inter- intuitiveanddeliberativeresponsesareinalignment,bothfavoring
yrightedbolelyfort ac6ce.4tsisopinnegrec,feFfne(tc2at,g1sei9zp)eo(cid:2)ianct.rs4o;,scpsom(cid:2)ncee.t6ph8toud(aislnotpefrriammctiainnoginp,ue6lf.af1eticpnteg:rcccoeogngntnaiitgtiievveeploopianrodts-, rdeellSaitbtiuevdreaytsine2lgf.iasSlhstnouedsyesx,2pwldohirriecedhctlaaygatseienscteoldenadtdhsepsoteotehnnyotpiaopltrhemedsoiecdst.eerdateofrf,echtoowf
copeds with;timeconstraints,2.7percentagepoints). stronglyparticipantsfeltthatgendernormswereenforcedintheir
isnd Examiningsimpleeffectsshowedasignificantpositiveeffectof lives, which was unsuccessful for reasons that we believe were
entnte promoting intuition among women (see Figure 2), effect size 3.8 practical, rather than theoretically informative, in nature (see on-
mi
docucleis preesrucletnintaggeinpooninatvs,er9a5g%e 10C.I8%[1.m9,or5e.7g]i,viZng(cid:2)in3t.h8e7,hipgh(cid:4)int.u0i0t0io1n; linesupplementalmaterialsection2fordetails).
hisarti conditionrelativetothelowintuitioncondition.Conversely,there
Ts Method
hi was no significant effect among men (see Figure 3), effect
T
size(cid:3)2.0percentagepoints,95%CI[(cid:3)4.2,.001],Z(cid:2)1.87,p(cid:2) Study2tookadvantageofthefactthatthreeofourexperiments
.062.Again,therewasnoevidenceofheterogeneityineffectsize fromStudy1(K,L,andM),inwhichparticipantscompletedthe
acrossstudies(women,chi2(21)(cid:2)13.1,p(cid:2).91;men,chi2(21)(cid:2) conceptualprimingmanipulationdescribedinStudy1andmadea
16.4,p(cid:2).75). single dictator game decision (total N (cid:2) 1,831; 51.5% female,
M (cid:2) 35.0 years), also included questions about self-
age
Study 2 identificationwithmaleandfemalesexroles(theshort-formofthe
Study 1 showed an interaction between gender and cognitive
processingmode:intuitionfavoredunilaterallyhelpingothersfor 1We did not include ego depletion, based both on evidence that ego
women,butnotformen.Althoughthiseffectwasconsistentwith depletion may not function in the same way as other cognitive process
manipulations (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012), and the fact that we were
our predictions based on the SHH and the differential daily-life
only able to obtain data from one depletion study with a total of 54
valueofaltruismforwomenversusmen,thegoalofStudy2was participants (Halali, Bereby-Meyer, & Ockenfels, 2013); including these
toprovidemoredirectevidenceforsocialnormsastheproposed datadoesnotqualitativelyalterourkeyresults.
4 RAND,BRESCOLL,EVERETT,CAPRARO,ANDBARCELO
Study %%
ID EESS ((9955%% CCII)) WWeeiigghhtt
U --77..8866 ((--4422..0011,, 2266..2299)) 00..7755
H --66..3311 ((--2255..2299,, 1122..6677)) 22..4433
B --55..5500 ((--2211..3355,, 1100..3366)) 33..4488
P --33..4411 ((--2211..7755,, 1144..9933)) 22..6600
A --00..9944 ((--1177..3366,, 1155..4488)) 33..2244
J --00..5599 ((--1199..7788,, 1188..5599)) 22..3388
T 00..5511 ((--3344..4411,, 3355..4422)) 00..7722
K 11..7733 ((--55..8899,, 99..3355)) 1155..0055
Q 22..1100 ((--99..2266,, 1133..4455)) 66..7788
E 33..0077 ((--1166..1144,, 2222..2299)) 22..3377
N 33..6600 ((--1166..9922,, 2244..1133)) 22..0077
y.
hers.broadl DL 6666....23233737 ((((----11113.3.66..97976,6, ,,11 24246.6.44..41411)1))) 2121.3.311..555533
s M 66..4466 ((--22..7744,, 1155..6655)) 1100..3344
publinated S 66..6655 ((--1155..0000,, 2288..2299)) 11..8877
dmi C 77..5533 ((--88..1122,, 2233..1199)) 33..5577
salliedisse VI 18180.0.00..13138 8 (( --((44--0.0.22..44444,4, ,,22 20200.0.22..79799)9))) 7575....78786161
ite
ofob O 1133..1166 ((--00..7788,, 2277..1100)) 44..5500
et R 1177..3399 ((11..6622,, 3333..1177)) 33..5511
onnot F 1188..5544 ((--11..8888,, 3388..9966)) 22..1100
oris G 2200..0055 ((22..9977,, 3377..1144)) 22..9999
ationand Overall 55..5522 ((22..5577,, 88..4488)) 110000..0000
cier
os
su
s
Aal
aldu -30 -20 -10 00 10 20 30
ologicindivi [Cognitive process X gender] interaction effect size (percentage points)
chhe Figure1. Effectsize(ES)forinteractionbetweengenderandcognitiveprocessingmodeforeachexperiment
yt
Psof inStudy1.SeeonlinesupplementalmaterialsTableS1forkey.Errorbarsindicate95%confidenceintervals
anse (CI).Graysquaresindicateweightplacedoneachstudybyrandom-effectsmeta-analysis.
cu
erial
mn
Aso
heper BemSex-RoleInventory[BSRI;Bem,1977]).2Participantsindi- interaction between gender, cognitive processing mode, and study
bytthe cated the extent to which each of 20 attributes (10 traditionally wasnotsignificant,F(2,1819)(cid:2).46,p(cid:2).63,wecollapsedacross
pyrightedsolelyfor Wmneaevsectrhueolinrneac,llma1so0ssifttirenadedvipteiarornttiraculilepyatonfet7sm’(cid:2)igneiannledw)eardyresosolcerriibadelemdnottishftiecamaltwi(oafnryosamstrmu1ea)(cid:2)s.3- sgtiuvTdinyogitneussotiunforgrsgumebnosddeqeerru,aetcniootnga,nnwiatilevyesceopsn.rdouccetsesdinagnmAoNdeO,VaAndpsreexdicrotilnegsDelGf-
coed culine versus feminine using a median split on the sum of all identification(0(cid:2)feminine,1(cid:2)masculine).4Inadditiontosignif-
sd
mentiinten mBoarsdceurlsin,e20it0e1m).sminusthesumofallfeminineitems(Hoffman& iwcaonmtemnawinereeffmecotsreoaflgtreunisdteicrFth(a1n,1m8e2n3,)a(cid:2)nd1s8e.x53ro,lpe(cid:4)sel.f0-0id0e1n,tsifuicchatitohnat,
hisdocuarticleis Results and Discussion Fm(o1r,e1a8l2tr3u)is(cid:2)tic1t3h.a5n7m,pas(cid:2)cu.l0in0e02p,arstuiccihpathnatst,fwemeionbinseerpvaerdtitchiepapnrtesdwiceterde
This Study2reproducedthepatternobservedinthemeta-analysis:an significantthree-wayinteractionbetweengender,cognitiveprocess-
T
analysisofvariance(ANOVA)predictingDGgivingbasedoncog-
nitiveprocessingmode,gender,andstudydemonstratedaninterac-
2Theorder(i.e.whetherthemoderatorquestionscamebeforeorafter
tion between cognitive processing mode and gender, F(1, 1819) (cid:2) the conceptual priming task and DG) was randomized. Our analyses
3.85, p (cid:2) .050, effect size 4.4 percentage points, such that dictator collapsedoverorder,ratherthananalyzingtheeffectoforder,becausea
giving was significantly greater among women when intuition was substantialdifferenceinattritionratesbetweentheorderspreventedvalid
promoted (M (cid:2) .40, SD (cid:2) .23) relative to deliberation (M (cid:2) .37, causalinferenceaboutordereffects.
3Traditionallymasculineattributes:willingtotakeastand;defendsown
SD(cid:2).24), t(941) (cid:2)2.08, p(cid:2).038;butcognitiveprocessdidnot
beliefs;independent;hasleadershipabilities;strongpersonality;forceful;
significantlyaffectgivingamongmen(intuition:M(cid:2).32,SD(cid:2).27; dominant;aggressive;assertive;willingtotakerisks.Traditionallyfemi-
deliberation:M(cid:2).33,SD(cid:2).27),t(886)(cid:2).58,p(cid:2).55.Noother nineattributes:affectionate;warm;compassionate;gentle;tender;sympa-
termsweresignificant(p(cid:5).15forall),exceptforasignificantmain thetic; sensitive to needs of others; soothe hurt feelings; understanding;
effect of gender, F(1, 1819) (cid:2) 29.5, p (cid:4) .001, effect size 6.3 loveschildren.
4Ourresultsarequalitativelyequivalentwhenusingacontinuousmea-
percentagepoints,suchthatwomen(M(cid:2).39,SD(cid:2).24)gavemore sureofsexroleself-identification,butforeaseofcalculatinganddisplay-
thanmen(M(cid:2).33,SD(cid:2).27).Inparticular,becausethethree-way ingsimpleeffectsofcognitiveprocessingmode,weusedthemediansplit.
INTUITIONFAVORSALTRUISMFORWOMENBUTNOTFORMEN 5
Study %%
ID EESS ((9955%% CCII)) WWeeiigghhtt
U --1155..6688 ((--4433..1144,, 1111..7788)) 00..4488
H --99..1155 ((--2244..1144,, 55..8855)) 11..6622
E --22..3355 ((--1144..1144,, 99..4444)) 22..6622
A --22..2222 ((--1155..4444,, 1111..0000)) 22..0088
J --11..9988 ((--1177..2266,, 1133..3300)) 11..5566
P --00..6688 ((--1111..6600,, 1100..2244)) 33..0055
B 11..7744 ((--88..5500,, 1111..9977)) 33..4488
K 11..7777 ((--33..6688,, 77..2222)) 1122..2255
T 22..7788 ((--2244..3377,, 2299..9922)) 00..4499
R 22..8855 ((--77..0022,, 1122..7722)) 33..7744
I 33..0000 ((--44..4499,, 1100..4488)) 66..5500
y.
hers.broadl MS 3333....87872626 ((((----2828....52522525,,,, 11110505....17176767)))) 9292....05055252
s L 44..5577 ((--00..7788,, 99..9933)) 1122..7700
publinated Q 55..4433 ((--00..3344,, 1111..1199)) 1100..9966
dmi O 55..8899 ((--22..7766,, 1144..5544)) 44..8877
salliedisse CV 8686....41418686 ((((--0044..55..229900,, ,,11 221111..77..112277)))) 2121.1.122..776666
ite
ofob G 88..5533 ((--22..3344,, 1199..3399)) 33..0099
et F 99..0055 ((--77..9933,, 2266..0022)) 11..2266
onnot D 99..0099 ((--66..7766,, 2244..9944)) 11..4455
oris N 1100..6677 ((--22..1199,, 2233..5533)) 22..2200
ationand Overall 33..7777 ((11..8866,, 55..6688)) 110000..0000
cier
os
su
s
Aal
aldu -20 -10 00 10 20
ologicindivi Cognitive process effect size (percentage points)
chhe Figure2. Effectsize(ES)forsimpleeffectofpromotingintuitionamongwomenforeachexperimentinStudy
yt
Psof 1.SeeonlinesupplementalmaterialsTableS1forkey.Errorbarsindicate95%confidenceintervals(CI).Gray
anse squaresindicateweightplacedoneachstudybyrandom-effectsmeta-analysis.
cu
erial
mn
Aso
eer ing mode, and sex role self-identification, F(1, 1823) (cid:2) 5.23, p (cid:2) occupying traditionally masculine sex roles became more selfish
hp
ythe .022,effectsize11.1percentagepoints.5 Thisthree-wayinteraction when deliberating. Conversely, men’s comparatively selfish intu-
bt
yrightedolelyfor wcFo(ag1sn,i9stu3ivc9eh)(cid:2)tphrao5tc.5eth2sse,irpneg(cid:2)wma.0so1da9e,seiagfnfnedicfitscseailnzf-etidt7we.4not-piwfeicracayetinointnatgereaampctooiionnngts,bwebotuwmteneeonnt, itiveresponsewasunGafefenceterdalbyDdisecliubsesriaotinon.
copeds amongmen,F(1,884)(cid:2)1.00,p(cid:2).32,effectsize(cid:3)3.8percentage
isnd points. Decomposing the significant two-way interaction among Whatrolesdointuitionanddeliberationplayinaltruism?Here
entnte women,wefoundasignificantnegativeeffectofpromotingdeliber- wehaveexploredthisquestionusingeconomicgamesandfound
mi
docucleis a.0ti0o2n,feofrfewcotmsieznew7.h8opseerlfc-eindteangteifipedoianstsm, aanscdulninoes,itg(3n7if1ic)a(cid:2)nt3e.1ff9e,cpt (cid:2)of tDhGattshtuedainesswaenrdderepveenadlsedonanwhinoteyroauctairoen.Swtuhderye1bympertoa-manoatilnygzeidnt2u2-
hisarti promoting deliberation for women who self-identified as feminine, itionrelativetodeliberationmadewomensignificantlymorelikely
This t(570)(cid:2).19,p(cid:2).85,effectsize.00percentagepoints.Ascanbe togive,buthadnosignificanteffectongivingamongmen.Study
T seeninFigure4,mengaveacomparativelysmalleramountregardless 2 then demonstrated moderation by sex role identification, such
ofcognitiveprocessingmodeoridentificationwithmasculineversus thatdeliberationspecificallyunderminedthealtruisticintuitionsof
feminineattributes,whereaswomengavealargeramountunlessthey womenwhosawthemselvesasmasculine.
bothidentifiedasmasculineandwereinducedtodeliberate.Wealso Ourresultstietogethertwodistinctlinesoftheory:oneregard-
note that these results were not driven entirely by the feminine sex ing gender differences in altruism, and another regarding social
role items, many of which were directly related to prosociality/ heuristics and the basis of intuition. Women disproportionately
altruism:amediansplitonjustthe10masculineitemsalsorevealsa occupy social roles that require communal and even self-
significant negative effect of deliberation among more masculine sacrificingbehavior:thus,failingtobehavecommunallyresultsin
women,t(429)(cid:2)2.35,p(cid:2).019,effectsize5.4percentagepoints, negative consequences for women more so than men. The SHH
and no significant effect of deliberation among less masculine
women,t(514)(cid:2).67,p(cid:2).50,effectsize1.4percentagepoints.
5NotethatthisresultisrobusttoBonferronicorrectingforalsohaving
Thus, Study 2 found that although intuition favored altruism testedasecondmoderator(describedinthesupplementalmaterials),given
among women, those women who explicitly saw themselves as thatp(cid:4).025.
6 RAND,BRESCOLL,EVERETT,CAPRARO,ANDBARCELO
Study %%
ID EESS ((9955%% CCII)) WWeeiigghhtt
R --1144..5555 ((--2266..8855,, --22..2244)) 33..0022
G --1111..5522 ((--2244..7711,, 11..6666)) 22..6633
F --99..4499 ((--2200..8844,, 11..8855)) 33..5566
U --77..8822 ((--2288..1122,, 1122..4488)) 11..1111
O --77..2277 ((--1188..2200,, 33..6666)) 33..8833
E --55..4422 ((--2200..5599,, 99..7755)) 11..9999
I --55..0033 ((--1144..7744,, 44..6688)) 44..8866
V --44..0022 ((--1133..0055,, 55..0022)) 55..6611
S --22..8888 ((--2200..8899,, 1155..1122)) 11..4411
H --22..8844 ((--1144..4477,, 88..8800)) 33..3388
M --22..6644 ((--99..3300,, 44..0022)) 1100..3333
y.
hers.broadl LJ ----1111....83830808 ((((----7171.2.277..99998,8, ,,44 ..11220000..)2)222)) 31312..244..070744
s A --11..2288 ((--1111..0022,, 88..4455)) 44..8833
publinated K 00..0044 ((--55..2299,, 55..3366)) 1166..1155
dmi C 00..9955 ((--88..2233,, 1100..1133)) 55..4444
salliedisse PT 2222....72723737 ((((----11112929....06061919,,,, 12127474....42426464)))) 2020....19191515
ite
ofob D 22..8877 ((--99..6633,, 1155..3366)) 22..9933
et Q 33..3333 ((--66..4466,, 1133..1111)) 44..7788
onnot N 77..0077 ((--88..9933,, 2233..0077)) 11..7799
oris B 77..2244 ((--44..8877,, 1199..3344)) 33..1133
ationand Overall --22..0044 ((--44..1188,, 00..1100)) 110000..0000
cier
os
su
s
Aal
aldu -20 -10 00 10 20
ologicindivi Cognitive process effect size (percentage points)
chhe Figure3. Effectsize(ES)forsimpleeffectofpromotingintuitionamongmenforeachexperimentinStudy
yt
Psof 1.SeeonlinesupplementalmaterialsTableS1forkey.Errorbarsindicate95%confidenceintervals(CI).Gray
anse squaresindicateweightplacedoneachstudybyrandom-effectsmeta-analysis.
cu
erial
mn
eAerso therefore predicts that men and women would develop different maximizingbecauseitisnon-zero-sum,andthusdoesnotrelyon
hp
ythe intuitions regarding altruism. And indeed, this is what our data expectationsrelatedtosocialroles.Consistentwiththisprediction,
bt show.OurresultsthereforesupportacoretenantoftheSHH—that afollow-uppaperinspiredbythecurrentstudiesfoundnogender
yrightedolelyfor iandtvuaitnitvaegeroesupso.nses implement social behaviors that are typically mwhoidcehrawtiaosnpoofstihtieverefloartiobnosthhiwpobmetewneeanndinmtueintio(nRaanndd,c2o0o1p6e)r.ation,
scopdeds thaItnccooonptrearsattitoonthweilclurbreenitnwtuoitrikveonreaglatrrudilsemss, tohfeoSnHe’Hs pgreenddicetrs: datTah,eraftahcetrtthhaatndseolmibeetriamtieosnmoanklyingwomrekns magoariensatltraultirsutiicsmbyinovoeurr-
in
entnte cooperating inherently has the possibility to be long-run payoff- ridingtheirselfishintuitions,isalsoconsistentwiththeSHH.The
mi
Thisdocuhisarticleis 45% **Women Men SaiystmHhionHoneussposofiinswnittehsoraauttchrtaciethoxonapiscek)er—eiymiasecnpnodatmsyspuo(ocbffhnecempanaautyxsooeifmfftdih-zemeilyniabgxie,nirmwvaotihizloivicnnehgiosicsnotehan-elsswihcdaooeytnrsasatinsideooelnnfrs---
T
40% workagainstanydeliberativemotivationstogive(suchashaving
er aconsciousdesiretobecommunal).
sf 35% Although we explicitly rely on social norms in our theorizing
n
G Tra 30% IDnetuliibtieornation aobrioguintsthoefthgeenddiestrribduiftfieornenocfemiennianntduiwtivoemeanltriunitsomd,iftfheerenutltsiomcaiatel
D
25% roles could be biological in nature (Preston, 2013). Specifically,
women’scapacityforreproductionandmen’sgreaterphysicalsize
20% and strength (Wood & Eagly, 2002) along with the evolutionary
Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine
advantagestowomenofoccupyingrolesthatrequirealonger-term
Sex Role Identification
investmentincaringforoffspring(Buss,1995)mayexplainwhy
Figure 4. Average dictator game (DG) giving in Study 2 by gender, women end up occupying roles that require communal and self-
cognitive processing mode, and sex role self-identification. Error bars sacrificing behavior in the first place and thus why altruism may
indicate95%confidenceintervals. (cid:2)(cid:2)p(cid:4).01. becometheintuitivesocialresponseforwomen.
INTUITIONFAVORSALTRUISMFORWOMENBUTNOTFORMEN 7
Thesizeoftheeffectsweobservedwasdeterminednotonlybythe Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
actualmagnitudeoftheinfluencethatintuitionanddeliberationhaveon interpretation.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
altruism,butalsobytheeffectivenessofthecognitiveprocessingmanip- Evans,A.M.(2014).IntuitionintheDictatorGame:Identifyingsocialand
ulationsused.Thesemanipulationswereatbestonlypartiallysuccessful selfishheuristics.Manuscriptinpreparation.
inmakingparticipantsrelymoreheavilyon intuition versus deliber- Halali,E.,Bereby-Meyer,Y.,&Ockenfels,A.(2013).Isitallaboutthe
self?Theeffectofself-controldepletiononultimatumgameproposers.
ation—those in the “intuition-promoting” conditions were un-
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 240. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
doubtedly still able to engage in substantial degrees of delibera-
fnhum.2013.00240
tion, despite the experimental manipulation. As a result, our
Hauge,K.E.,Brekke,K.A.,Johansson,L.-O.,Johansson-Stenman,O.,&
overallestimatesoftheobservedeffectsarelikelyunderestimates
Svedsäter, H. (2014). Keeping others in our mind or in our heart?
of the effect size of intuitive processing on altruism one might
Distribution games under cognitive load. University of Gothenburg
observe with more powerful manipulations, or in more strongly
WorkingPapersinEconomics,(600).
valenced real-world interactions. Thus, we argue that the size of Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different conse-
theobservedeffectsislessimportantthattheirdirection. quences:Reactionstomen’sandwomen’saltruisticcitizenshipbehav-
shers.broadly. afucttRuedreelabrtyeesdreleaydr,cuihctisinshgouudnlecdlliebuaesrerathdtieioffneexrvteeennrtstumtsoaanwmiphpuiclliahftyitoihnnegsseitnomtubaienttiitopenru.luaTntihdouenrss-, Hei.i1olm0r.3a7Jno/,0uM0r2n.1aE-l9.o,0f&10A.Op9p0kl.i3ime.d4o3toP1,syTc.hGol.o(g2y0,0970).,W43h1y–a4r4e1w.ohmttpe:n//dpxe.ndaolii.zoerdg/f1o0r
dpubliminated sintacnludditnhgebnaasteulrieneorfesppaortnisceipsa(ni.tes.’,nboasmelainneipruelsaptioonns)e.sF,uarsthewrmelloraes, sAupcpcleiessdPatsymchaolelotgays,k9s?2:,8T1h–e92im.hptltipe:d//dcxo.mdomi.uonrga/l1it0y.1d0e3f7ic/i0t0.2J1o-u9r0n1a0l.9o2f
eofitsallietobedisse fignuitvtuuiinrtegivreeexsteaealntrrdcuhitsosmhootwuhleedrefooxbrasmmersivnoeefdwailhntreutthihseetrictchboeenhtgeaexvntidoeor,rfsduiinfctfheerrapesenrccsehosanriain-l Ho.Scf1afe.mt8xio1-aRnno,vlRaer.iIManbv.ie,lin&ttyo.BrMyo:redAaesrurse,raeLsm.seeDsn.stm(a2en0nd0t1Ea).nvTadlwunaeentwitoyni-sfsiinuveeCsyoreueagnrsaseradlfiitnneggrtachnleadsBsDeifemi--
onnot tablegiving(Small,Loewenstein,&Slovic,2007)and“extreme” velopment,34,39–55.
oris altruism(Rand&Epstein,2014),andtointergroupcontexts(given Inzlicht,M.,&Schmeichel,B.J.(2012).Whatisegodepletion?Toward
ciationerand emveidne;nVcaenthVautgtrti,bDaleinCsrteinmcetsr,f&orJpaanrsoscehni,al2a0l0tr7u)i.smarestrongerin ativmesecohnanPissyticchorelovgisiicoanloSfcitehnecer,es7o,u4r5ce0–m4o6d3e.lhottfps:/e/ldfx-c.doonit.roorlg./P10e.r1s1p7e7c-/
ssous Insum,weprovideevidencethatpromotingintuitionrelativeto 1745691612454134
alAdual deliberation increases altruistic giving in women but not men. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping
ologicindivi Tityh,esaendfinaddivnagnsceextaenmdooduerluonfdienrtsutiatnivdeindgeocfisgioenn-dmerakainndgpbraosseodciaoln- .boorugn/1d0e.d10r3at7i/o0n0a0li3t-y0.6A6mXe.5ri8c.a9n.69P7sychologist,58,697–720.http://dx.doi
chhe socialheuristics. Kinnunen,S.P.,&Windmann,S.(2013).Dual-processingaltruism.Fron-
Psyoft tiersinPsychology,4,193.http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00193
ne Kiyonari, T., Tanida, S., & Yamagishi, T. (2000). Social exchange and
as
ericalu References reciprocity:Confusionoraheuristic?EvolutionandHumanBehavior,
mn 21,411–427.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00055-6
eAerso Bear,A.,&Rand,D.G.(2016).Intuition,deliberation,andtheevolution Lotz,S.(2015).Spontaneousgivingunderstructuralinequality:Intuition
hp of cooperation. Proceedings of the United States of America National
ythe Academy of Sciences, 113, 936–941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas promotescooperationinasymmetricsocialdilemmas.PLoSONE,10,
bt e0131562.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131562
pyrightedsolelyfor Be.pm1s5,y1cS7h.7oL8lo0.g1(i11c39a7l7a)n.dOrongythney.uJtioluitrynaolfoafltCeronnastiuvletinpgroacnedduCrelisnifcoarlaPssseyscshionlg- PMeasycistcayokbPhyore,vsEisc..hE,.A(.1,9&98R)a.nTdh,eDtw.Go.s(e2x0e1s.5)C.aHmabbriitdsgoef,vMirAtu:e:HCarrevaatridngUnnoivrmers-
coed ogy,45,196–205.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196 of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science.
sd Benjamin,D.J.,Brown,S.A.,&Shapiro,J.M.(2013).Whois“behav-
documenticleisinten iE.1ou1rar1ol1”p/?ejeaCenao.1gE2nc0iot5inv5oemaicbiAlitsysoacniadtioann,om11a,lo1u2s31p–re1f2e5re5n.chetst.p:J/o/duxr.ndaoli.oorfg/t1h0e PPrreoAlostzdtgokvincoa,a,nlSJc.eB.,uDOolnl.ueli(itmn2ine0e,1tpt13eu3),b.9Bl,Ti.c1,ha3&eti0oo5Snr–ci.1ghh3iont4otsp1le:.o/r/fh,dtJaxt.pl.td(:r/2ou/0dii.s1xom5.rdg)o./i1niB.0oeo.r1lfgif2e/s18vp07irn./i1mng0gnt3hsc7eca/r.ar2ee00.i01s3P5n1s.o27y1c5fh65reo8e-
Thissarti Brevsocloulbli,liVty.Lin.o(2rg0a1n1i)z.aWtiohnos.taAkdemsitnhiestfrlaotoivreanSdciwenhcye:QGueanrdteerr,lyp,o5w6e,r6,2a2n–d willcorruptsintuitivecooperation.RetrievedfromSSRN2490855.
Thi 641.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994 Rand,D.G.(2016).Cooperation(unlikealtruism)isintuitiveformenas
well as women. Retrieved from SSRN 2722981. http://ssrn.com/
Buss,D.M.(1995).Psychologicalsexdifferences.Originsthroughsexual
abstract(cid:2)2722981
selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164 Rand,D.G.,&Epstein,Z.G.(2014).Riskingyourlifewithoutasecond
Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture-gene coevolution, norm- thought:Intuitivedecision-makingandextremealtruism.PLoSONE,9,
psychologyandtheemergenceofhumanprosociality.TrendsinCog- e109687.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109687
nitive Sciences, 15, 218–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03 Rand,D.G.,Greene,J.D.,&Nowak,M.A.(2012).Spontaneousgiving
.003 andcalculatedgreed.Nature,489,427–430.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
Cone, J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Time pressure increases cooperation in nature11467
competitivelyframedsocialdilemmas.PLoSONE,9,e115756.http:// Rand,D.G.,Newman,G.E.,&Wurzbacher,O.(2015).Socialcontextand
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115756 the dynamics of cooperative choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Cornelissen, G., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2011). Are social value Making,28,159–166.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1837
orientations expressed automatically? Decision making in the dictator Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in
game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1080–1090. Cognitive Sciences, 17, 413–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405996 .06.003
8 RAND,BRESCOLL,EVERETT,CAPRARO,ANDBARCELO
Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., VanVugt,M.,DeCremer,D.,&Janssen,D.P.(2007).Genderdifferences
Wurzbacher,O.,Nowak,M.A.,&Greene,J.D.(2014).Socialheuris- incooperationandcompetition:Themale-warriorhypothesis.Psycho-
ticsshapeintuitivecooperation.NatureCommunications,5,3677.http:// logicalScience,18,19–23.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007
dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4677 .01842.x
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Wood,W.,&Eagly,A.H.(2002).Across-culturalanalysisofthebehavior
CognitivestyleinfluencesbeliefinGod.JournalofExperimentalPsy- of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.
chology:General,141,423–428.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025391 Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. 2909.128.5.699
PsychologicalBulletin,119,3–22.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909 Wright,P.(1974).Theharasseddecisionmaker:Timepressures,distrac-
.119.1.3 tions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and cal- 555–561.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037186
lousness:Theimpactofdeliberativethoughtondonationstoidentifiable Zaki,J.,&Mitchell,J.P.(2013).Intuitiveprosociality.CurrentDirections
in Psychological Science, 22, 466–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
0963721413492764
Processes,102,143–153.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
shers.broadly. VaDTnheLevoaenrloygpeam,nPedn.tApor.e,flDpimreoisnBoarcruyiianle,,viEnid.deMinvci.d,eu.OaJtltioesuntir,cn,Waal.n,do&fcoPJmoeirprseeomtnitaainvli,etyJo.raAine.dnt(a1St9oio9cn7ias)l:. RevisionrecReeivceediveJadnJuuanrye1198,,22001156
publinated Psychology,73,733–746.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733 AcceptedJanuary20,2016 (cid:2)
dmi
salliedisse
ite
ofob
et
onot
n
ors
i
ationand
cier
os
su
s
Aal
aldu
ologicindivi
he
ch
yt
Psof
ne
as
cu
erial
mn
Aso
eer
hp
ythe
bt
yrightedolelyfor
ps
coed
sd
in
entnte
mi
docucleis
hisarti
Ts
hi
T
Supplemental Materials
Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men
by D. G. Rand et al.
1. Details of the experiments included in the meta-analysis of Study 1
Table S1. Details of the experiments analyzed in Study 1. Gender data from Oberholzer-Gee and
Eichenberger (2008) were unavailable, and so this study was not included in the meta-
analysis.The indicated sample size includes only participants for whom gender data was
available.
Exp Subject pool Manipulation N Other notes
A Time constraint (<5s vs >30s). Delay was 154 $0.10 stake.
B MTurk enforced on the instructions page rather than 158 $0.10 stake.
C the decision page. 192 $0.40 stake.
Conceptual prime: Write about a time in your
D 125 $0.10 stake.
life where [following your intuition worked
out well or carefully reasoning through a
E MTurk 114 $0.10 stake.
problem worked out poorly] vs [following
your intuition worked out poorly or carefully
F 134 $0.40 stake.
reasoning through a problem worked out well].
Conceptual prime: Please write a paragraph
G (approximately 8-10 sentences) describing a 225 $0.30 stake. “Intuition good” prime was implemented
incorrectly, so this study was more like “Reason good” vs
MTurk time [your intuition/first instinct] vs [carefully
baseline. Also, decision options were given in 5 cent
reasoning through a situation] led you in the
H 189 increments, but the $0.05 option was accidentally omitted.
right direction and resulted in a good outcome.
$10 stake. 1/10 chance of decision actually being
I eLab 340
implemented.
Time constraint (<10s vs >10s)
J MTurk 104 $1 stake.
Conceptual prime: Write about a time in your
K 715
life where [following your intuition worked
out well or carefully reasoning through a
L MTurk 619 $0.30 stake. Also analyzed in Study 2.
problem worked out poorly] or [following
your intuition worked out poorly or carefully
M 439
reasoning through a problem worked out well].
Conceptual prime: instructed to decide
according to their first impulse, their gut-
N Physical lab 48 20€ stake. Kinnunen and Windmann (2013).
feeling and intuition; or to deliberate and take
their time before deciding
1€ stake, no equal split option. Cornelissen, Dewitte, and
O 150
Warlop (2011) Study 1.
Cognitive load (memorize random vs 1.10€ stake, no equal split option.
P Physical lab 102
sequential 8-digit number) Cornelissen et al. (2011) Study 2b.
1.10€ stake, no equal split option.
Q 171
Cornelissen et al. (2011) Study 3.
NOK 300 stake. Subjects played 2 DGs, first with take
Cognitive load (memorize random vs easy 9 frame than with give frame; we average fraction given over
R 60
digits of letters & numbers) the 2 DGs. Hauge, Brekke, Johansson, Johansson-Stenman,
Physical lab
and Svedsäter (2014) Study 2.
Cognitive load (memorize random vs easy 7
S 74 SEK 160 stake. Hauge et al. (2014) Study 3.
digits of letters & numbers)
Cognitive load (memorize 7 digit number vs
T 37 300 peso stake. Benjamin, Brown, and Shapiro (2013) Study 3.
nothing)
Physical lab
Cognitive load (remember # of times a
U 60 $1.00 stake. Benjamin et al. (2013) Pilot Study.
sequence of musical tones was played)
Snowball
Conceptual prime: Write 100-150 words about Played 8 DGs with stakes between 5€ and 44€. 1/10 chance
sampling via
V a time intuition or reflection lead to a positive 156 of one DG being randomly selected for payment; we
email and
outcome average fraction given over the 8 DGs. Evans (2014).
Facebook
2. Second moderator in Study 2
In addition to the BSRI, the moderator questionnaire in Study 2 included five questions about
the extent to which participants reported internalizing societal gender norms in their daily lives,
which we loosely adapted from Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, and Elliot (1991) and Brescoll
(2012): “In your everyday life, how important is for to you to behave in ways that are considered
socially appropriate for your gender?”; “How committed are you to behaving in ways that are
considered socially appropriate for your gender?”; “How central to your self-concept (i.e., your
view of your self) is behaving in ways that are considered socially appropriate for your gender?”;
“Would you be concerned that you might be disliked for behaving in ways that are considered
socially inappropriate for your gender?”; “Would you be concerned that people would judge you
for behaving in ways that are considered socially inappropriate for your gender?”
These items were intended to capture the extent to which gender norms were enforced in
participants’ lives, which affects the strategies that were typically adaptive – and therefore was
predicted to affect intuitive responses: greater importance (and internalization) of gender norms
was predicted to amplify sex differences, leading women to be more intuitively altruistic and
men to be more intuitively selfish.
We averaged responses to these 5 items to form an aggregate measure (α=.89). Unlike
the BSRI results reported in the main text, there was no significant 3-way interaction between
gender, cognitive processing mode, and internalization of gender norms F(1, 1823)=1.95, p=.16;
and no other terms involving internalization of gender norms were significant, p>.10 for all.
We believe that this null result was most likely explained by limitations of the (not
previously validated) explicit self-report measure we used, rather than indicating a theoretically
meaningful lack of moderation. This is especially true given that in addition to not observing the