“Scientists Probe Human Nature, and Discover We Are Good, After All

Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless

Nov 20, 2012 |By Adrian F. Ward

When it really comes down to it—when the chips are down and the lights are off—are we
naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it
costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion.
Augustine’s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish,
saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were
savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but
through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau
argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More
recently, these questions about human nature—selfishness and cooperation, defection and
collaboration—have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the
UK’s Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the
strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide
nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean
noting without empirical data.

A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not
through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of
science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and
Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral
philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same
essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or
cooperatively.

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which
explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection.
Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into
the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—
identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and
rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can
boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—
selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In
other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-
control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with
rational self-interest?

To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between
intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes
operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—
predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response
most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and
cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods
game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate
campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial
decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to
maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize
group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study,
faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation,
whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of
selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and
Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.

The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which
they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate—
processing speed—and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this
influence—intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies,
researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a
nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these
participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly
(after at least 10 seconds had passed). In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a
nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive
or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern—whether people were forced
to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through
priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who
relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to
cooperate with others.

Taken together, these studies—7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—
suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally
cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded?
After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make
friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of
addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they
asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically,
whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship
between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who
reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation
is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this
behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly
rewarded trait.

Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether
we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—
has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television
programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered
victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of
studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or
participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first
instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.

Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us
evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves—and our solutions will likely vary
according to how we define “human nature.” If human nature is something we must be born
with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is
simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems
that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group
even when it comes at our own personal expense.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Adrian F. Ward is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.

His doctoral research is focused on the relationships between technology, cognition, social
relationships, and self-esteem, and he also studies moral decision-making and the self.

Tomado de: Scientific American, en Internet, el 24 de Enero de 2014, a las 17:20