*Result 5: Intuitive subjects are more likely to punish a selfish dictator than reflective subjects.*

Of the 236 subjects, 105 chose to punish the *dictator*, who kept the entire endowment to herself. The average amount sacrificed was DKK 4.8 which implies that a selfish *dictator*, on average, had her income reduced by DKK 24. The modal amount sacrificed was DKK 0, which 55.5% of the subjects chose. 10.2% of the subjects chose to reduce the earnings of the selfish *dictator* to DKK 0 by sacrificing DKK 20 of their endowment. 15.3% of the subjects chose to reduce the *dictator's* earnings by DKK 50 leaving the *dictator* with half of her initial endowment.

57.1% of the *intuitive* subjects chose to punish as opposed to 39% of the *reflective* subjects. This difference is statistically significant (*<sup>p</sup>* <sup>=</sup> 0.017, *<sup>χ</sup>*<sup>2</sup> <sup>−</sup> *test*). The *reflective* subjects sacrificed, on average, DKK 3.97 as opposed to DKK 6.69 sacrificed by *intuitive* subjects. This difference is statistically significant (*p* < 0.01, MWU). Comparing the *reflective* subjects to those not *reflective* yields the same conclusion.

Considering only the subjects who opted for the opportunity to *punish* the selfish *dictator*, the *intuitive* subjects sacrificed, on average, DKK 11.7 as opposed to DKK 10.2 by the *reflective* subjects. This difference is not statistically significant (*p* > 0.32, MWU).

When controlling for gender, *reflective* subjects are estimated to be 20.1%-points more likely to not punish the dictator than *non-reflective* subjects. *Reflective* subjects are predicted to not engage in *third-party punishment* with a probability of 61.2% as opposed to a predicted probability of 41.1% for those *non-reflective* (see Table 1).
