A Computational Model of Second-Order Social Reasoning

This paper presents the first computational cognitive model of second-order social reasoning. The model uses a decision tree strategy to reason about the opponent's behavior. We hypothesize that a decision tree strategy requires (1) declarative memory, and (2) working memory. Declarative memory is required to retrieve successive reasoning steps, while working memory is required to temporarily store these reasoning steps while the next step is retrieved from memory. The model fit on data from a social reasoning game supports the validity of the model. This initial result leads to an explicit prediction for an experiment in which the reasoning game is combined with another task that requires the same cognitive resources as hypothesized by the model. This work is a first step towards understanding higher-order social reasoning from a cognitive modeling perspective.

[1]  N. Taatgen,et al.  The problem state: a cognitive bottleneck in multitasking. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Rineke Verbrugge,et al.  Children’s Application of Theory of Mind in Reasoning and Language , 2008, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[3]  H. Wimmer,et al.  “John thinks that Mary thinks that…” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children ☆ , 1985 .

[4]  H. Rijn,et al.  The Facilitative Effect of Context on Second-Order Social Reasoning , 2010 .

[5]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Learning to reason about speakers' alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account , 2007 .

[6]  Jelmer P. Borst,et al.  Stroop and picture—word interference are two sides of the same coin , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. , 2008, Psychological review.

[8]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  H. V. Ditmarsch.  OUCS-2001-02 The description of game actions in Cluedo , 2001 .

[10]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[11]  Eric van Damme,et al.  Non-Cooperative Games , 2000 .

[12]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics , 1977 .

[13]  Christian Lebiere,et al.  Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: Cognitive Architectures, Game Playing, And Human Evolution , 2005 .

[14]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[15]  Richard Reviewer-Granger.  Unified Theories of Cognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  John R. Anderson.  How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe , 2007 .

[17]  R. Verbrugge.  The Facts Matter, and so do Computational Models , 2009 .

[18]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2010 .

[19]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  W. Hoek,et al.  Epistemic logic: a survey , 2002 .

[21]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: a case study in pronoun comprehension. , 2010, Journal of child language.

[22]  R. Rosenthal.  Games of perfect information, predatory pricing and the chain-store paradox , 1981 .

[23]  T. Hedden,et al.  What do you think I think you think?: Strategic reasoning in matrix games , 2002, Cognition.

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

[25]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of the centipede game , 1992 .

[26]  Hedderik van Rijn,et al.  The Locus of the Gratton Effect in Picture-Word Interference , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[27]  R. Sun.  Cognition and Multi-Agent Interactions: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation , 2005 .

[28]  Rineke Verbrugge,et al.  Learning to Apply Theory of Mind , 2008, J. Log. Lang. Inf..