IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inferring on the Intentions of Others by Hierarchical Bayesian Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Andreea O Diaconescu
  • Christoph Mathys
  • Lilian A E Weber
  • Jean Daunizeau
  • Lars Kasper
  • Ekaterina I Lomakina
  • Ernst Fehr
  • Klaas E Stephan

Abstract

Inferring on others' (potentially time-varying) intentions is a fundamental problem during many social transactions. To investigate the underlying mechanisms, we applied computational modeling to behavioral data from an economic game in which 16 pairs of volunteers (randomly assigned to “player” or “adviser” roles) interacted. The player performed a probabilistic reinforcement learning task, receiving information about a binary lottery from a visual pie chart. The adviser, who received more predictive information, issued an additional recommendation. Critically, the game was structured such that the adviser's incentives to provide helpful or misleading information varied in time. Using a meta-Bayesian modeling framework, we found that the players' behavior was best explained by the deployment of hierarchical learning: they inferred upon the volatility of the advisers' intentions in order to optimize their predictions about the validity of their advice. Beyond learning, volatility estimates also affected the trial-by-trial variability of decisions: participants were more likely to rely on their estimates of advice accuracy for making choices when they believed that the adviser's intentions were presently stable. Finally, our model of the players' inference predicted the players' interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) scores, explicit ratings of the advisers' helpfulness and the advisers' self-reports on their chosen strategy. Overall, our results suggest that humans (i) employ hierarchical generative models to infer on the changing intentions of others, (ii) use volatility estimates to inform decision-making in social interactions, and (iii) integrate estimates of advice accuracy with non-social sources of information. The Bayesian framework presented here can quantify individual differences in these mechanisms from simple behavioral readouts and may prove useful in future clinical studies of maladaptive social cognition.Author Summary: The ability to decode another person's intentions is a critical component of social interactions. This is particularly important when we have to make decisions based on someone else's advice. Our research proposes that this complex cognitive skill (social learning) can be translated into a mathematical model, which prescribes a mechanism for mentally simulating another person's intentions. This study demonstrates that this process can be parsimoniously described as the deployment of hierarchical learning. In other words, participants learn about two quantities: the intentions of the person they interact with and the veracity of the recommendations they offer. As participants become more and more confident about their representation of the other's intentions, they make decisions more in accordance with the advice they receive. Importantly, our modeling framework captures individual differences in the social learning process: The estimated “learning fingerprint” can predict other aspects of participants' behavior, such as their perspective-taking abilities and their explicit ratings of the adviser's level of trustworthiness. The present modeling approach can be further applied in the context of psychiatry to identify maladaptive learning processes in disorders where social learning processes are particularly impaired, such as schizophrenia.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreea O Diaconescu & Christoph Mathys & Lilian A E Weber & Jean Daunizeau & Lars Kasper & Ekaterina I Lomakina & Ernst Fehr & Klaas E Stephan, 2014. "Inferring on the Intentions of Others by Hierarchical Bayesian Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003810
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013. "Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Wako Yoshida & Ray J Dolan & Karl J Friston, 2008. "Game Theory of Mind," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    4. Will D Penny & Klaas E Stephan & Jean Daunizeau & Maria J Rosa & Karl J Friston & Thomas M Schofield & Alex P Leff, 2010. "Comparing Families of Dynamic Causal Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Marie Devaine & Guillaume Hollard & Jean Daunizeau, 2014. "Theory of Mind: Did Evolution Fool Us?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Jörg Rieskamp & Brenda Lea K. Krugel & Hauke R. Heekeren, 2011. "The Neural Basis of Following Advice," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2011-038, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    7. P. Read Montague & Steven E. Hyman & Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004. "Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control," Nature, Nature, vol. 431(7010), pages 760-767, October.
    8. Ting Xiang & Debajyoti Ray & Terry Lohrenz & Peter Dayan & P Read Montague, 2012. "Computational Phenotyping of Two-Person Interactions Reveals Differential Neural Response to Depth-of-Thought," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    10. Jean Daunizeau & Hanneke E M den Ouden & Matthias Pessiglione & Stefan J Kiebel & Karl J Friston & Klaas E Stephan, 2010. "Observing the Observer (II): Deciding When to Decide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Jean Daunizeau & Hanneke E M den Ouden & Matthias Pessiglione & Stefan J Kiebel & Klaas E Stephan & Karl J Friston, 2010. "Observing the Observer (I): Meta-Bayesian Models of Learning and Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Clare Chua Chow & Rakesh Sarin, 2002. "Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 127-138, March.
    13. Timothy E. J. Behrens & Laurence T. Hunt & Mark W. Woolrich & Matthew F. S. Rushworth, 2008. "Associative learning of social value," Nature, Nature, vol. 456(7219), pages 245-249, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Payam Piray & Nathaniel D. Daw, 2021. "A model for learning based on the joint estimation of stochasticity and volatility," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1413-1438 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Jacqueline N. Zadelaar & Joost A. Agelink van Rentergem & Jessica V. Schaaf & Tycho J. Dekkers & Nathalie de Vent & Laura M. S. Dekkers & Maria C. Olthof & Brenda R. J. Jansen & Hilde M. Huizenga, 2021. "Development of decision making based on internal and external information: A hierarchical Bayesian approach," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1413-1438, November.
    4. Florent Meyniel & Maxime Maheu & Stanislas Dehaene, 2016. "Human Inferences about Sequences: A Minimal Transition Probability Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie Devaine & Guillaume Hollard & Jean Daunizeau, 2014. "The Social Bayesian Brain: Does Mentalizing Make a Difference When We Learn?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Dimitrije Marković & Jan Gläscher & Peter Bossaerts & John O’Doherty & Stefan J Kiebel, 2015. "Modeling the Evolution of Beliefs Using an Attentional Focus Mechanism," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-34, October.
    4. M. Vittoria Levati & Stefan Napel & Ivan Soraperra, 2017. "Collective Choices Under Ambiguity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 133-149, January.
    5. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    6. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2014. "A Test of Mechanical Ambiguity," Working Papers 0555, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    7. Elisa Cavatorta & David Schröder, 2019. "Measuring ambiguity preferences: A new ambiguity preference survey module," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 71-100, February.
    8. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    9. Fabien Vinckier & Lionel Rigoux & Irma T Kurniawan & Chen Hu & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Jean Daunizeau & Mathias Pessiglione, 2019. "Sour grapes and sweet victories: How actions shape preferences," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    10. David Schröder & Gail Gilboa Freedman, 2020. "Decision making under uncertainty: the relation between economic preferences and psychological personality traits," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 61-83, July.
    11. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    12. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    13. Milos Borozan & Loreta Cannito & Barbara Luppi, 2022. "A tale of two ambiguities: A conceptual overview of findings from economics and psychology," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 11-21, July.
    14. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    15. Ilke Aydogan & Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three layers of uncertainty: an experiment," Working Papers 623, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    16. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    18. Andreas Hula & P Read Montague & Peter Dayan, 2015. "Monte Carlo Planning Method Estimates Planning Horizons during Interactive Social Exchange," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-38, June.
    19. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    20. Yang, Chun-Lei & Yao, Lan, 2011. "Ellsberg Paradox and Second-order Preference Theories on Ambiguity: Some New Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 28531, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.