Transcript How do we understand the behavior of others?: The agency system Clark Barrett
How do we understand the behavior of others?: The agency system Clark Barrett UCLA [email protected]
Heider and Simmel (1944)
What is agency?
• Agency = the capacity to act in a goal-directed (intentional) way • Humans use the “intentional stance” (Dennett 1987) to interpret and make predictions about behavior.
• Main question: What cognitive mechanisms allow us to do this?
Talk outline
• Research goal: searching for building blocks of the agency system 1. Perceptual templates / schemas 2. Conceptual schemas 3. Switching the system on and off 4. Interactions with other systems: agency and social cognition • Concluding speculations
Why should you care? (Why is the agency system important for culture, norms, and evolution?) • • A) A security guard fails to detect a terrorist 50 people die.
B) A security guard throws a grenade into a plane full of passengers 50 people die.
• Perhaps understanding intentions gets you more than just looking at outcomes?
(Intentions in behavioral econ: Blount, McCabe)
Decomposing the agency system
[Ultimate] goal: a computational account
INPUTS A “black box” account (non-computational) “Theory of mind ” , “ Belief / desire reasoning ” , “ Intentional stance ” OUTPUTS Perceptual cues Knowledge ?
Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions
What’s in here?
INPUTS Inside the black box (a modular, or computational, account) Conceptual schemas Perceptual templates / schemas Predator-prey schema Perceptual cues
(AD, ID)
Social Xch schema Etc.
Knowledge OUTPUTS Behavior predictions Processor (“ToMM”) Judgments & Decisions Scope restrictors / modifiers Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals
INPUTS Inside the black box (a modular, or computational, account) Conceptual schemas Perceptual templates / schemas Predator-prey schema OUTPUTS Perceptual cues Social Xch schema Etc.
Knowledge Processor (“ToMM”) Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions Scope restrictors Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals
Perceptual templates
• Achieving (many) goals entail certain kinds of motion: e.g., pursuit • If intentions have motion signatures, “templates” can be made: detectors • Does the mind contain such templates for detecting particular kinds of intentional behavior?
What basic motion schemas do people possess?
An experimental study of intentional motion perception
Todd, Barrett, Miller, & Blythe
An experimental study of intentional motion perception
Todd, Barrett, Miller, & Blythe •
Question: can people reliably use motion to infer the intentions of agents, and categorize them?
• Categories: Pursuit, court, lead / follow, guard, fight, play • Generated by German adults in game context, evaluated by second set of judges (free descriptions, forced choice) • Within categories, no two exemplars alike; must rely on abstract qualities to make judgment
6-category study: German adults
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 P ur su it
True category
C o ur t L e a d / fo llo w G ua rd F ig ht P la y C Pu rsu it ou rt Le ad G ua Fig ht Pla y rd / fo llo w
Selected category
German 3-5 yr olds
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 C ha se
True category
F ig ht Lead P la y Chase Fight Lead Play
Selected category
• But: • Are Germans just communicating a culturally shared schema to other Germans?
• Or are these motion schemas universal?
Cross-cultural study: Shuar of Ecuador
Cross-cultural study: Shuar of Ecuador
4-category cross-cultural study
Categories
Chase Fight Lead Play
Shuar German
Shuar adults, horticulturalists N=23
Apap éatin
Berlin college students N=40
Verfolgen
Berlin kindergarteners age 3-5, N=36
Mániatin Kämpfen Jintíatin Nakurústin Führen Spielen
Shuar and German adults
0.9
0.8
Percent selected
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 chase (S) chase (G)
True category
fight (G) lea d (S ) lea d (G) pla y (S ) pla y (G) play lead fight chase chase fight lead play
Selected category
Motion perception: summary
• There appear to exist motion schemas for particular kinds of intention • The same templates are present across cultures
Conceptual schemas
INPUTS Perceptual cues Knowledge Perceptual templates / schemas Conceptual schemas Predator-prey schema Social Xch schema Etc.
Processor (“ToMM”) Scope restrictors Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals OUTPUTS Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions
INPUTS Perceptual cues Knowledge Perceptual templates / schemas Conceptual schemas Predator-prey schema Social Xch schema Etc.
Processor (“ToMM”) Scope restrictors Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals OUTPUTS Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions
Conceptual schemas
• Function: making inferences intentional interaction.
about particular kinds of • May be many, e.g. : – Social exchange, – mating, – parent / offspring, – predator / prey, – kin altruism – Fiske: relational models • Is there evidence for them?
Predator-prey schema
Pre-contact Predator detects prey Mutual detection Prey detects predator Approach ( ) Wait / Flee ( ) Wait / Hide Hide / Ambush
Key
Agents predator prey Parameters knowledge relation action relation Pursuit death
Study of children’s inferences about predator-prey interactions Barrett, Cosmides, & Tooby • Shuar (N=28) and German (N=38) 3 to 5 year olds • Simulated predator-prey encounter with plastic models (Jaguar / horse; Lion / zebra) • At each stage, children predict what will happen next • Also infer mental states of predator and prey
Example question: When the lion sees the zebra, what does the lion • Schema-consistent: – Chase zebra – Catch zebra – Bite zebra – Eat zebra – Kill zebra • Inconsistent: – Go away (N=1 german) – Eat grass (N=1 shuar) • Rest DK or no response want to do ?
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Schema inconsistent Schema consistent 0 G er m an
3 yrs
Sh ua r G er m an
4 yrs
Sh ua r G er m an
5 yrs
Sh ua r
Q: When the lion catches the zebra, what will happen? • Schema-consistent: – Lion hurts zebra – Lion kills and / or eats zebra • Inconsistent: – German 3yr: "then he wants to go to the hospital" (not clear if lion or zebra – German 3 yr: "lion climbs up to the window and falls down“ • But: Few unrealistic or “fantasy” answers • German + Shuar similar: surprising on cultural view
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 G er m an y
3 yrs
Sh ua r Schema inconsistent Schema consistent G er m an y
4 yrs
Sh ua r G er m an y
5 yrs
Sh ua r
Summary of responses on predator-prey questions 100 90 80 70 Consistent No response Fantasy Folk-psychological Irrelevant Violation 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 German
3 yrs
Shuar German
4 yrs
Shuar German
5 yrs
Shuar
Predator-prey schema: Summary
• Predator-prey schema is present at an early age across cultures • Leads to realistic inferences about predator and prey behavior • Similar in very different cultures, uncontaminated by cultural inputs like fairy tales and cartoons • Other schemas?
INPUTS Perceptual cues Knowledge Perceptual templates / schemas Conceptual schemas Predator-prey schema Social Xch schema Etc.
Processor (“ToMM”) Scope restrictors Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals OUTPUTS Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions
Development of social exchange schema Barrett, Keller, Takezawa, Wichary • Examined children’s judgments of violations of bilateral social contracts • And predictions of reactions of different parties to violations • German 1 st and 4 th graders
Children’s judgments of contract violations 100 80 60 40 20 0 friend sibling neighbor mother mutual compliance child violates other violates mutual non compliance
Predicted reactions of victim of contract violation
Anger in Simon when other violates
100 80 60 40 20 0 1st graders 4th graders friend sibling neighbor mother
Predicted reactions of violator
Guilt to Sim on when Sim on violates
100 80 60 40 20 0 friend sibling neighbor mother 1st grade 4th grade
Social contract schema: Summary
• Even young children can identify contract violations • Ability to predict other’s reactions in social exchange situations may be useful for moderating one’s own behavior • Future research: what other schemas are there? When do they schemas develop? (e.g. mating?)
Switching the agency system on and off
Agency detection
• Some things are agents, and some are not • Agents require vigilance, and figuring out what they are trying to do • Assuming everything is an agent entails costs • Selects for discrimination between agents and non-agents
Agency detection activates appropriate inference systems AGENT NON AGENT Activate agency system Activate other object system (e.g. substance) Inferences licensed: can move, will react if touched, can hurt you… etc Different patterns of inference: Inferences licensed: can’t move, will not react if touched, can be subdivided into pieces that retain properties, etc…
What about dead things?
Death as the cessation of agency
Barrett and Behne • Hypothesis: • Agency detection system contains a “remapping” routine AGENT SUBSTANCE
ALIVE
COW
DEAD
STEAK Activate agency system Deactivate agency system, activate substance system Activate substance system
Different inference patterns
Cross-cultural test of cessation of agency hypothesis • 3 to 5 year old German and Shuar children • Sleep vs death: Animals and people • Target questions: – Can it move?
– If you touched it, could it move?
– Could it hurt you?
– If you made a noise, could it know you were there?
– Could it be afraid?
• Sleep / death is a strong test
Patterns of inference for sleep vs death Move?
1 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 3 4 5 1 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 3 4 5
If touched?
3 4 5 3 4 5
Hurt you? Detect you?
3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5
Be afraid?
GERMAN
3 4 5
SHUAR
3 4 5 Sleep Death Sleep Death
10 9 8 7 6 2 1 0 5 4 3
Mean # correct responses by population and age
Human condition Animal condition 3 German 4 5 3 Shuar 4 5
Cessation of agency: summary
• Agency inferences can be switched on and off for a particular object • This aspect of agency detection present by age 4 or earlier • Same developmental trajectory across cultures: suggests core feature of agency system
Agency and social cognition
Is a norm violated if it is violated by mistake?
Intentions and social contract violation • Cosmides (1989: social contracts are agreements to exchange benefits • Cheating = accepting benefit without paying cost • But: Suppose you agree to give your friend $1000 if he will give you his car next week. However, his car is stolen. Has he cheated you?
Perhaps intentions are an important part of social contracts.
Social contract Wason
Social contract rule: “If you give me your watch, then I will give you $10” Watch no watch $10 $5 P ~p q About 75% of people pick violation cards ~q
Manipulating intent, incentive, ability • Cover story manipulated so that potential violator either had: 1. Intent to violate, or violated by mistake 2. Incentive to violate, or no incentive 3. Ability to violate, or no ability (except at random) • How do the presence or absence of these factors affect subject’s vigilance for cheaters (card turning patterns)?
Operationalizing intent
Benefit / Intent / Ability:
You supervise four women who volunteered to help out at the local Board of Education. Your volunteers were supposed to follow certain rules for assigning students from various towns to the appropriate school district. Each volunteer is the mother of a teenager who is about to enter high school, and each processed her own child’s documents. school.
You overheard that some of your volunteers intended to break the rules when it came to assigning their own children to a Here is the situation: Although both communities are equally prosperous, the parents in Dover City have always cared about the quality of their schools, including Dover High, and have been willing to pay for it. In contrast, the parents in the neighboring town of Hanover have never wanted to spend the money, and have opposed any taxes to improve Hanover High. The Board of Education created this rule:
City.” “If a student is to be assigned to Dover High School, then that student must live in Dover
A. Dover High School C. Hanover High School B. Dover City D. town of Hanover
Without intent
•
Benefit / Ability
• You supervise four women who volunteered to help out at the local Board of Education. Your volunteers were supposed to follow certain rules for assigning students from various towns to the appropriate school district. Each volunteer is the mother of a teenager who is about to enter high school, and each processed her own child’s documents. You know your volunteers are honest, but you suspect that they may have made some innocent mistakes: they may have broken the rules for assigning each child to a particular school ...
Operationalizing incentive, ability
• Incentive: parents sort their own students into schools, or only students of others • Ability: students names are written on sheet, or students identified only by code numbers
~20%
Agency and social contracts: summary • Vigilance for cheating affected ~ 20% for each factor • Additive • The difference between intentional and accidental violation of norms may be important in many other contexts as well: killing, politeness, fairness, etc..
Conclusion
Summary of findings
• The agency system is not a single “ability,” but is comprised of many components • Perceptual templates for identifying agents and specific intentions of agents • Conceptual schemas for reasoning about intentions: provide the content for theory of mind • Agency system can be turned on and off • Agency system can influence social attribution and decision making processes
Eventually, we will need a fully computational account… INPUTS “Theory of mind ” , “ Belief / desire reasoning ” , “ Intentional stance ” OUTPUTS Perceptual cues Knowledge ?
Behavior predictions Judgments & Decisions
What’s in here?
(Which might or might not look something like this.) Conceptual schemas INPUTS Perceptual templates / schemas Predator-prey schema OUTPUTS Perceptual cues Social Xch schema Etc.
Knowledge Behavior predictions Processor (“ToMM”) Judgments & Decisions Scope restrictors Human Dog Lion Taxa John Susan Jim Individuals
Understanding the agency system might have many implications for understanding social evolution.
How important is the ability to understand intent for the evolution of cooperation, norms, etc?