Recipient design in human communication: simple heuristics or perspective taking?

Humans have a remarkable capacity for tuning their communicative behaviors to different addressees, a phenomenon also known as recipient design. It remains unclear how this tuning of communicative behavior is implemented during live human interactions. Classical theories of communication postulate that recipient design involves perspective taking, i.e., the communicator selects her behavior based on her hypotheses about beliefs and knowledge of the recipient. More recently, researchers have argued that perspective taking is computationally too costly to be a plausible mechanism in everyday human communication. These researchers propose that computationally simple mechanisms, or heuristics, are exploited to perform recipient design. Such heuristics may be able to adapt communicative behavior to an addressee with no consideration for the addressee's beliefs and knowledge. To test whether the simpler of the two mechanisms is sufficient for explaining the “how” of recipient design we studied communicators' behaviors in the context of a non-verbal communicative task (the Tacit Communication Game, TCG). We found that the specificity of the observed trial-by-trial adjustments made by communicators is parsimoniously explained by perspective taking, but not by simple heuristics. This finding is important as it suggests that humans do have a computationally efficient way of taking beliefs and knowledge of a recipient into account.

[1]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  How to approach humans?-strategies for social robots to initiate interaction , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[2]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Hearers and speech acts , 1982 .

[3]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Why Heuristics Work , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of communication , 2012 .

[5]  D. Barr,et al.  The Egocentric Basis of Language Use , 1998 .

[6]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[7]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations , 2012, Synthese.

[8]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  Experimental Semiotics: A New Approach for Studying Communication as a Form of Joint Action , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[9]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[10]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[11]  Boaz Keysar,et al.  Less Is More: A Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[12]  S. Brennan,et al.  Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?. , 2010 .

[13]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[14]  Ian A. Apperly,et al.  The Neural and Cognitive Time Course of Theory of Mind , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  S. Levinson,et al.  Brain Mechanisms Underlying Human Communication , 2009, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[16]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  How Action Understanding can be Rational, Bayesian and Tractable , 2010 .

[17]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Designing sociable robots , 2002 .

[18]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Recipient design in tacit communication , 2009, Cognition.

[19]  Hubert L. Dreyfus,et al.  Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing it Would Require Making it More Heideggerian , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Other minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of “theory of mind” in story comprehension , 1995, Cognition.

[21]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  The computational costs of recipient design and intention recognition in communication , 2011, CogSci.

[22]  J. Geoffrey Chase,et al.  Human-Robot Collaboration: A Literature Review and Augmented Reality Approach in Design , 2008 .

[23]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  The Tractable Cognition Thesis , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  G. Ritchie,et al.  Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication , 2008, Cognition.

[25]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Emergence of Human Communication Systems , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Z. Pylyshyn Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence , 1987 .

[27]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Group attention control for communication robots with Wizard of OZ approach , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[29]  Willem F. G. Haselager,et al.  Cognitive Science and Folk Psychology: The Right Frame of Mind , 1997 .

[30]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[31]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[32]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[33]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  Cultural Conflict and Merger Failure: An Experimental Approach , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[34]  J. D. Ruiter,et al.  On the origin of intentions , 2007 .

[35]  N. Epley,et al.  Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  Neural mechanisms of human communicative innovations , 2012 .

[37]  S. Garrod,et al.  Experimental semiotics: a new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication , 2010 .

[38]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[39]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Intentional Communication: Computationally Easy or Difficult? , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[40]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Uta Frith,et al.  Theory of mind , 2001, Current Biology.

[42]  Barnaby Marsh,et al.  Heuristics as social tools , 2002 .

[43]  Stephen W. Smoliar,et al.  The Robot's dilemma: The frame problem in artificial intelligence: Zenon W. Pylyshyn (Ed.), (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1987); xi + 156 pages, $29.50 , 1988 .

[44]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[45]  B. Newell Re-visions of rationality? , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[46]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Code Creation in Endogenous Merger Experiments , 2010 .

[47]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[48]  B. Keysar,et al.  When do speakers take into account common ground? , 1996, Cognition.