Cooperation, Response Time, and Social Value Orientation: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Recent research at the cross between cognitive and social sci- ences is investigating the cognitive mechanisms behind coop- erative decisions. One debated question is whether cooperative decisions are made faster than non-cooperative ones. Yet em- pirical evidence is still mixed. In this paper we explore the implications of individual heterogeneity in social value orien- tation for the effect of response time on cooperation. We con- duct a meta-analysis of available experimental studies (n=8; treatments=16; 5,232 subjects). We report two main results: (i) the relation between response time and cooperation is mod- erated by social value orientation, such that it is positive for individualist subjects and negative for prosocial subjects; (ii) the relation between response time and cooperation is partly mediated by extremity of choice. These results suggest that highly prosocial subjects are fast to cooperate, highly individ- ualist subjects are fast to defect, and subjects with weaker pref- erences make slower and less extreme decisions. We explain these results in terms of decision-conflict theory.

Intuition, reflection, and prosociality: Evidence from a field experiment

“…In line with our expectations and previous studies [29,30,32], we observe that participants with higher prosocial attitudes behave more prosocial. While we find that self-reported intuitiveness has a positive effect on prosocial behavior in a bivariate analysis, this effect vanishes as soon as we control for prosocial attitudes.…”

“…Indeed, studies on this topic find that individuals with stronger prosocial attitudes act more prosocial. More interestingly, they also find evidence that prosocial individuals act less prosocial the longer they need to decide [29,30,32] and that similar results are observed when an experimental manipulation like time pressure is used [33].…”

“…Following previous findings in the literature on attitudes and prosocial behavior [29,30,32], we expect that people with stronger prosocial attitudes will behave more prosocially. Furthermore, and in accordance with the SHH, we expect a positive interaction effect between prosocial attitudes and intuitiveness on prosocial behavior.…”

An Electrophysiological Model for Assessing Cognitive Load in Tacit Coordination Games

“…Second, our previous studies have shown that the cultural background of players as well as their individual preferences may greatly affect the strategies players choose in coordination games [25,65,78]. For example, it was previously shown that highly prosocial participants and highly individualistic ones are fast responders (either they cooperate or defect, respectively) [79]. Hence, the effect of factors associated with both cultural differences and personal characteristics on the TBR and other electrophysiological indices should be further examined.…”

Time Pressure and In-group Favoritism in a Minimal Group Paradigm

“… Mischkowski and Glöckner (2016) focused on social value orientation and argued that intuitive cooperation was observed for prosocials, but not for proselfs. In addition, Yamagishi and colleagues argued that only individuals with prosocial orientation may react intuitively and cooperatively ( Yamagishi et al, 2017 ; Andrighetto et al, 2020 ). These accumulating insights into intuitive cooperation, however, have not sufficiently examined the situational factors surrounding decision makers other than individual factors.…”