FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W104073178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W104073178 abstract "Reasoning about social choices and social relationships Alan Jern Charles Kemp jern@rose-hulman.edu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ckemp@cmu.edu Department of Psychology Carnegie Mellon University Abstract Kemp, 2011). In social settings, however, the chooser’s utility may depend on the utility experienced by others. One way to capture this dependence is to suppose that the chooser’s util- ity function is a weighted combination of the utilities directly experienced by all affected individuals (Wyer, 1969; McClin- tock, 1972; Griesinger & Livingston, Jr., 1973). We propose that people represent different social relationships as differ- ent utility weighting functions. We show that combining this proposal with the inverse reasoning approach can account for a wide array of social inferences, including inferences about whether a pair of people are more likely to be friends, ene- mies, or strangers. Our proposal is conceptually related to previous computa- tional approaches that have been used to explain how people infer social goals like “helping” (Baker, Goodman, & Tenen- baum, 2008; Ullman et al., 2009). These approaches have focused on how people reason about sequences of actions that extend through time and space. By contrast, we explore one of the simplest possible settings that supports inferences about social choices and how such choices are affected by social relationships. The next two sections introduce our formal approach in more detail. We then evaluate our approach in an experiment in which participants made several kinds of inferences about social choices. We study inferences about social choices—choices that affect people besides the chooser. Social choices depend on the rela- tionships between the people involved: for example, whether they are friends, strangers, or enemies. We propose that these different social relationships correspond to different ways in which the chooser weights another person’s utility relative to her own. We describe a probabilistic model of social reasoning that incorporates this notion of weighted utility, and evaluate it in an experiment in which participants made inferences about others’ social choices. The results support our probabilistic model and expose some of the assumptions that people tend to make when reasoning about social choices. Keywords: social cognition; social reasoning; folk social psy- chology; probabilistic models People frequently engage in folk psychological reasoning. We explain and predict other people’s behavior and draw in- ferences about other people’s thoughts and feelings. This reasoning sometimes depends on knowledge of social rela- tionships. For example, if you know that Alice and Bob are friends, you might predict that Alice would be willing to make a financial sacrifice to help Bob, perhaps by offering him a loan. If you know that Alice and Bob are enemies, you might predict that Alice would not be willing to make a finan- cial sacrifice to benefit Bob, but she might be willing to make a financial sacrifice to harm Bob, perhaps by turning down a mutually beneficial business opportunity. Alice’s choices above are instances of social choices— choices that affect people besides the chooser. Her choices each result in a cost to herself, but also a benefit or cost to Bob. These examples illustrate how knowledge of the rela- tionship between two people can inform expectations about the social choices that they will make. Conversely, observing a social choice may allow us to infer something about the re- lationship between the people involved. Despite the fact that people commonly reason about social choices and social re- lationships, there are few formal proposals about how people perform this sort of reasoning (Haslam, 1994). We suggest in this paper that inferences about social choices and relation- ships can be viewed as a kind of probabilistic reasoning. Previous research has explored how people reason about other people’s non-social choices, like choosing which shirt to buy. Standard choice models can be used to predict the choices that follow from a given set of preferences, and “in- verting” these models provides a way to reason backward and infer the preferences that likely motivated an observed choice. Several studies have shown that this inverse reasoning ap- proach accounts well for experiments that focus on reasoning about non-social choices (Lucas et al., 2014; Bergen, Evans, & Tenenbaum, 2010; Jern & Kemp, 2011; Jern, Lucas, & A social choice model We propose that people reason about social choices by invert- ing a simple model of how utilities give rise to social choices. Consistent with previous approaches (Train, 2009), we as- sume that utilities are additive and that people tend to choose options with greater utilities. With social choices, the notion of utility can be confusing because utility is not necessarily identical to a direct reward. For example, if Alice’s choice can either benefit or harm Bob, Alice’s utility may depend on the effect her choice has on Bob in addition to any benefit her choice provides for herself. To alleviate this confusion, we will refer to the utilities assigned to rewards or payouts as direct utilities and will use the term “utility” to refer to a chooser’s total utility. How much utility a chooser assigns to different options in a social choice depends on how the chooser weights the direct utilities of everyone affected by the choice. Here we assume that there is only one other person affected by the choice, but our approach can be straightforwardly extended to include any number of people. We will henceforth refer to the chooser as Alice and the person affected by the choice as Bob. Let w A be the weight that Alice assigns to her own direct utility and" @default.
• W104073178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W104073178 creator A5050161830 @default.
• W104073178 creator A5080087902 @default.
• W104073178 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W104073178 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W104073178 title "Reasoning about social choices and social relationships" @default.
• W104073178 cites W1987125304 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2006053003 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2061289703 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2109245740 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2109954531 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2119133403 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2134906087 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2135727220 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2158995533 @default.
• W104073178 cites W2626428101 @default.
• W104073178 cites W92749598 @default.
• W104073178 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W104073178 type Work @default.
• W104073178 sameAs 104073178 @default.
• W104073178 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W104073178 countsByYear W1040731782021 @default.
• W104073178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W104073178 hasAuthorship W104073178A5050161830 @default.
• W104073178 hasAuthorship W104073178A5080087902 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C14036430 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C183115368 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C189352744 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C86658582 @default.
• W104073178 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C126838900 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C14036430 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C144237770 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C154945302 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C15744967 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C169760540 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C169900460 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C180747234 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C183115368 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C189352744 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C2776214188 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C33923547 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C41008148 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C71924100 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C77805123 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C78458016 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C86658582 @default.
• W104073178 hasConceptScore W104073178C86803240 @default.
• W104073178 hasIssue "36" @default.
• W104073178 hasLocation W1040731781 @default.
• W104073178 hasOpenAccess W104073178 @default.
• W104073178 hasPrimaryLocation W1040731781 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W1504167167 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W18578006 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W1944047681 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W198246759 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W1997607724 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2047566682 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2091087429 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2126438710 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2135727220 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2162375377 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2165575236 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2241005767 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2244105259 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2324223967 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2586378776 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2885015068 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2951133492 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W2965920951 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W3171570538 @default.
• W104073178 hasRelatedWork W94198628 @default.
• W104073178 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W104073178 isParatext "false" @default.
• W104073178 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W104073178 magId "104073178" @default.
• W104073178 workType "article" @default.