*Appendix D.5. Third-Party Punishment Behavior*

The distribution of the *third-party punishment* decision can be found in Table A4 and is illustrated in Figure A5.


**Table A4.** Frequency of Punishment Sacrifice by Intuitive (Reflective) Individuals.

**Figure A5.** Frequency of Punishments Sacrifice by Intuitive (Reflective) Individuals.

*Appendix D.6. Behavioral Differences between Intuitive and Reflective Individuals (Excluding Residual Group)*

In Table A5 an overview of the results when excluding the residual group can be found. This include means of the different tasks as well as *p*-values from the statistical tests. A table with the marginal effects from logistic regressions can be found in Table A6. Excluding the residual group from the analyses and comparing those categorized as *reflective* only with those categorized as *intuitive* does not change much in the conclusions. Most notable differences are in terms of statistical significant in the MWU distribution tests and the contingency-table *χ*<sup>2</sup> tests where the *p*-values are greater for almost all of the tasks. The logistic regressions excluding the residual group reveal a very similar pattern in terms of statistical significant and interpretation of marginal effects.


**Table A5.** Results Excluding the Residual Group by Intuitive (Reflective) Individuals.


**Table A6.** Marginal effects from Logistic regressions.

Standard errors in parentheses. \*\*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\* *p* < 0.05, \* *p* < 0.1. A: Dictator Game transfer = 0, B: Ultimatum Game offer = 0 or = 10, C: Ultimatum Game acceptance threshold = 0 or = 10, D: Strategic fairness; Ultimatum Game offer greater than Dictator Game transfer, E: Punishment sacrifice = 0, F: Compliance with A; B; C; E, G: Compliance with A; C; D; E.
