sciresНаучные исследования экономического факультета. Электронный журналScientific Research of Faculty of Economics. Electronic Journal2078-3809Moscow State University10.38050/2078-3809-2019-11-4-46-73scires-137Research ArticleПОВЕДЕНЧЕСКАЯ ЭКОНОМИКАBehavioural EconomicsНедальновидная скупость? Ориентация на будущее способствует репутации щедрости (Скупость и щедрость как основа репутации) (перевод М.Ю. Белецкая)Short-sighted Greed? Focusing on the Future Promotes Reputation-based Generosity (trans. Maria Yu. Beletskaya)СьостадХ.SjåstadH.

Холлгейр Сьостад, доктор психологических наук  

Берген

Hallgeir Sjåstad,  Ph.D., Assistant Professor  

Bergen

Hallgeir.Sjastad@snf.noНорвежская школа экономикиНорвегияNorwegian School of EconomicsNorway2019281220191144673Copyright © Сьостад Х., 20192019Сьостад Х.Sjåstad H.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://scires.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/137

 Долгосрочное мышление и добровольное распределение ресурсов – две отличительные черты человеческой природы. В трех экспериментах (N = 1082) я проверяю причинную связь: иногда люди проявляют щедрость из-за того, что думают о будущем. Участникам случайным образом было предложено сфокусироваться либо на настоящем, либо на будущем, а затем они принимали конкретные решения в гипотетических сценариях. В исследовании 1 (N = 200) участники, ориентированные на будущее, разделили больше денег в публичной игре «диктатор», чем участники, ориентированные на настоящее (+ 39%), и они были готовы пожертвовать больше денег на благотворительность (+ 61%). В исследовании 2 (N = 410) был воспроизведен положительный эффект ориентации на будущее при игре «диктатор», когда выбор был обозначен как публично известный (+ 36%), но не было обнаружено такого эффекта, когда выбор был обозначен как неизвестный другим людям. Таким образом ориентация на будущее делала участников более щедрыми только тогда, когда другие знали об их выборе. Исследование 3 (N = 472) обеспечивало больший охват и предварительную фиксацию гипотез и техники исследования, частично повторяя исследование 1, и включая несколько расширений. Ориентированные на будущее участники снова пожертвовали больше денег на благотворительность в рамках сценария общественных пожертвований (+40%), и они с большей вероятностью выбирали вариант волонтерской деятельности (+17%). Как и предполагалось, эффект был опосредован заботой о репутации, указывая на то, что ориентация на будущее может сделать людей более щедрыми, потому что это также заставляет их задуматься о социальных последствиях своего выбора. Взятые вместе, результаты показывают, что ориентация на будущее способствует увеличению проявления щедрости, в основе которой лежит забота о репутации. Стимулируя добровольное распределение ресурсов, центральной функцией человеческого предвидения может быть поддержка сотрудничества в группах и обществе.  

Long-term thinking and voluntary resource sharing are two distinctive traits of human nature. Across three experiments (N=1,082), I propose a causal connection: Sometimes people are generous because they think about the future. Participants were randomly assigned to either focus on the present or the future and then made specific decisions in hypothetical scenarios. In Study 1 (N=200), future-focused participants shared more money in a public dictator game than present-focused participants (+39%), and they were willing to donate more money to charity (+61%). Study 2 (N=410) replicated the positive effect of future-focus on dictator giving when the choice was framed as public (+36%), but found no such effect when the choice was framed as private. That is, focusing on the future made participants more generous only when others would know their identity. Study 3 was a high-powered and pre-registered replication of Study 1 (N=472), including a few extensions. Once again, future-focused participants gave more money to charity in a public donation scenario (+40%), and they were more likely to volunteer for the same charity (+17%). As predicted, the effect was mediated by reputational concern, indicating that future-orientation can make people more generous because it also makes them more attuned to the social consequences of their choices. Taken together, the results suggest that focusing on the future promotes reputation-based generosity. By stimulating voluntary resource sharing, a central function of human foresight might be to support cooperation in groups and society.   

перспективное мышлениещедростьрепутациясотрудничествоморальfuture thinkinggenerosityreputationcooperationmoralityReferencesAndreoni, J. (1988). Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of public Economics, 37(3), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/00472727(88)90043-6Andreoni, J. (1988). Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of public Economics, 37(3), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/00472727(88)90043-6Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in huntergatherers. Nature, 481(7382), 497-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10736Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in huntergatherers. Nature, 481(7382), 497-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10736Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation (Vol. 5145). Basic Books (AZ).Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation (Vol. 5145). Basic Books (AZ).Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. Oxford. University Press. https://doi.Org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195167030.001.0001Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. Oxford. University Press. https://doi.Org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195167030.001.0001Baumeister, R. F., Maranges, H. M., & Sjastad, H. (2018). Consciousness of the future as a matrix of maybe: Pragmatic prospection and the simulation of alternative possibilities. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154Baumeister, R. F., Maranges, H. M., & Sjastad, H. (2018). Consciousness of the future as a matrix of maybe: Pragmatic prospection and the simulation of alternative possibilities. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why people think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000060Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why people think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000060Bear, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517780113Bear, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517780113Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip in-creases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405073Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip in-creases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405073Ben-Ner, A., Kramer, A., & Levy, O. (2008). Economic and hypothetical dictator game ex-periments: Incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1775-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2007.11.004Ben-Ner, A., Kramer, A., & Levy, O. (2008). Economic and hypothetical dictator game ex-periments: Incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1775-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2007.11.004Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2018). Does observability affect prosociality? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1875). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0116Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2018). Does observability affect prosociality? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1875). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0116Bulley, A., Henry, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2016). Prospection and the present moment: The role of episodic foresight in intertemporal choices between immediate and delayed rewards. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000061Bulley, A., Henry, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2016). Prospection and the present moment: The role of episodic foresight in intertemporal choices between immediate and delayed rewards. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000061Bulley, A., Miloyan, B., Pepper, G. V., Gullo, M. J., Henry, J. D., & Suddendorf, T. (2019). Cuing both positive and negative episodic foresight reduces delay discounting but does not affect risk-taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818819777Bulley, A., Miloyan, B., Pepper, G. V., Gullo, M. J., Henry, J. D., & Suddendorf, T. (2019). Cuing both positive and negative episodic foresight reduces delay discounting but does not affect risk-taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818819777Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M.,... & Alt-mejd, A. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562018-0399-zCamerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M.,... & Alt-mejd, A. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562018-0399-zCamerer, C., & Mobbs, D. (2016). Differences in behavior and brain activity during hypothet-ical and real choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 46-56.Camerer, C., & Mobbs, D. (2016). Differences in behavior and brain activity during hypothet-ical and real choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 46-56.Camerer, C., & Weigelt, K. (1988). Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica, 56(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911840Camerer, C., & Weigelt, K. (1988). Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica, 56(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911840Cappelen, A., & Tungodden, B. (Eds.) (2019). The economics of fairness. The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics Series. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367700Cappelen, A., & Tungodden, B. (Eds.) (2019). The economics of fairness. The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics Series. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367700Capraro, V., Jordan, J. J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Heuristics guide the implementation of social preferences in oneshot Prisoner’s Dilemma experiments. Scientific reports, 4, 6790. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06790Capraro, V., Jordan, J. J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Heuristics guide the implementation of social preferences in oneshot Prisoner’s Dilemma experiments. Scientific reports, 4, 6790. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06790Chennu, S., Noreika, V., Gueorguiev, D., Blenkmann, A., Kochen, S., Ibanez, A., ... & Bekinschtein, T. A. (2013). Expectation and attention in hierarchical auditory prediction. Journal of Neu-roscience, 33(27), 1119411205. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0114-13.2013Chennu, S., Noreika, V., Gueorguiev, D., Blenkmann, A., Kochen, S., Ibanez, A., ... & Bekinschtein, T. A. (2013). Expectation and attention in hierarchical auditory prediction. Journal of Neu-roscience, 33(27), 1119411205. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0114-13.2013Crockett, M. J. (2016). How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415624012Crockett, M. J. (2016). How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415624012Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-ascooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.1086/701478Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-ascooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.1086/701478Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. W. W. Norton & Company. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. W. W. Nor-ton & Company. Engelmann, J. M., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Five-year olds, but not chimpanzees, attempt to manage their reputations. PLOS ONE, 7(10), e48433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048433Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. W. W. Norton & Company. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. W. W. Nor-ton & Company. Engelmann, J. M., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Five-year olds, but not chimpanzees, attempt to manage their reputations. PLOS ONE, 7(10), e48433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048433Engelmann, J. M., Over, H., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Young children care more about their reputation with ingroup members and potential reciprocators. Developmental Science, 16(6), 952-958. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12086Engelmann, J. M., Over, H., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Young children care more about their reputation with ingroup members and potential reciprocators. Developmental Science, 16(6), 952-958. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12086Eriksson, K., Vartanova, I., Strimling, P., & Simpson, B. (2019). Generosity pays: Selfish people have fewer children and earn less money. Forthcoming in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000213Eriksson, K., Vartanova, I., Strimling, P., & Simpson, B. (2019). Generosity pays: Selfish people have fewer children and earn less money. Forthcoming in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000213Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645-1692. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645-1692. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fair-ness, reciprocity and altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615-691. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0714(06)01008-6Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fair-ness, reciprocity and altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615-691. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0714(06)01008-6Ferrante, D., Girotto, V., Straga, M., & Walsh, C. (2013). Improving the past and the future: A temporal asymmetry in hypothetical thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 23-27. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0027947Ferrante, D., Girotto, V., Straga, M., & Walsh, C. (2013). Improving the past and the future: A temporal asymmetry in hypothetical thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 23-27. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0027947Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 628-638.Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 628-638.Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.Helzer, E. G., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Whatever is willed will be: A temporal asymmetry in attributions to will. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1235-1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212448403Helzer, E. G., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Whatever is willed will be: A temporal asymmetry in attributions to will. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1235-1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212448403Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford University Press.Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford University Press.Jachimowicz, J. M., Chafik, S., Munrat, S., Prabhu, J. C., & Weber, E. U. (2017). Community trust reduces myopic decisions of low-income individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(21), 5401-5406. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617395114Jachimowicz, J. M., Chafik, S., Munrat, S., Prabhu, J. C., & Weber, E. U. (2017). Community trust reduces myopic decisions of low-income individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(21), 5401-5406. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617395114Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., Balliet, D., & Strathman, A. (2012). Promotion orientation ex-plains why futureoriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consider-ation of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272-1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., Balliet, D., & Strathman, A. (2012). Promotion orientation ex-plains why futureoriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consider-ation of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272-1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362Jordan, J., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Signaling when no one is watching: A reputation heuristics account of outrage and punishment in one-shot anonymous interactions. Forthcoming in Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology.Jordan, J., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Signaling when no one is watching: A reputation heuristics account of outrage and punishment in one-shot anonymous interactions. Forthcoming in Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology.Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snack-ing: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snack-ing: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004Kolle, F., & Wenner, L. (2018). Present-biased generosity: Time inconsistency across individual and social contexts (Discussion Paper No. 2018-02). The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Eco-nomics, University of Nottingham. Retrieved from https://econpa-pers.repec.org/paper/notnotcdx/2018-02.htmKolle, F., & Wenner, L. (2018). Present-biased generosity: Time inconsistency across individual and social contexts (Discussion Paper No. 2018-02). The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Eco-nomics, University of Nottingham. Retrieved from https://econpa-pers.repec.org/paper/notnotcdx/2018-02.htmKortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, un-certainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284006Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, un-certainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284006Krebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: An evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-ence, 3(3), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.xKrebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: An evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-ence, 3(3), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.xMcGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.1McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.1Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. Simon and Schuster.Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. Simon and Schuster.Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5,4939. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5939Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5,4939. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5939Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. Penguin UK. Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Metaanalytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psycholog-ical Science, 27(9), 1192-1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654455Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. Penguin UK. Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Metaanalytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psycholog-ical Science, 27(9), 1192-1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654455Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.00Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.00Roberts, W. A. (2002). Are animals stuck in time? Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.473Roberts, W. A. (2002). Are animals stuck in time? Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.473Rothbart, M., & Snyder, M. (1970). Confidence in the pre-diction and postdiction of an uncertain outcome. Cana-dian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 2(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082709Rothbart, M., & Snyder, M. (1970). Confidence in the pre-diction and postdiction of an uncertain outcome. Cana-dian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 2(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082709Sakaluk, J. K. (2016). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.013Sakaluk, J. K. (2016). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.013Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657-661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2213Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657-661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2213Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication re-sults. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication re-sults. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. New York: Riverhead Books.Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. New York: Riverhead Books.Suddendorf, T. (2013). The gap: The science of what sep-arates us from other animals. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.Suddendorf, T. (2013). The gap: The science of what sep-arates us from other animals. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.Suddendorf, T, & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975Suddendorf, T, & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674915855Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674915855Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Re-view of Psychology, 64(1), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych113011-143812Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Re-view of Psychology, 64(1), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych113011-143812Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755Vonasch, A. J., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B. M., & Baumeis-ter, R. F. (2018). Death before dishonor: Incurring costs to protect moral reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 604-613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720271Vonasch, A. J., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B. M., & Baumeis-ter, R. F. (2018). Death before dishonor: Incurring costs to protect moral reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 604-613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720271Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Reputation management: Why and how gossip enhances generosity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.11.001Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Reputation management: Why and how gossip enhances generosity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.11.001

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.