The Effect of Complexity on Training for Exploration of Non-intuitive Rules in Theory of Mind
- 10 Downloads
The current research focused on training to enhance exploration in Theory of Mind (ToM), using a training program based on the game SET®. (© 1988, 1991 Cannei, LLC. All rights reserved. SET® and all associated logos and taglines are registered trademarks of Cannei, LLC. Used with permission from Set Enterprises, Inc.) Two experimental groups were tasked with predicting the selections of a virtual player given a set of unknown rules governing the assignment of values to SETs, where one aspect of the rules (the fact that some values were negative) was designed to be particularly unintuitive. In the Simple Rule group, there were only four sets of values and their assignment followed a pattern, whereas in the Complex Rule group, there were many sets of values and their assignment was arbitrary, requiring greater exploration to determine them. The Simple Rule group was better at predicting more-intuitive selections of the virtual player, while the Complex Rule group was both better and faster at predicting less-intuitive selections. Hence, exposing trainees to complex rules governing others’ decisions might be used to change people’s tendency toward under-exploration in ToM.
KeywordsDecision-making Learning Games Cognitive structure Knowledge
This research was supported in part by the ORT Braude College, Israel.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The research involved human participants and was approved by the ORT Braude College’s ethical committee. Participants have signed on informed consent.
- Bazerman, M., & Neal, M. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Brooks, L. (1978). Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Gopher, D. (2007). Emphasis change as a training protocol for high-demands tasks. In A. Kramer, D. Wiegman, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Applied attention: from theory to practice. Oxford University Press: New York, USA.Google Scholar
- Harbers, M., Van den Bosch, K., & Meyer, J. (2009). Enhancing training by using agents with a theory of mind. Proceedings of EduMas, 23–30.Google Scholar
- Hodges, F. B. (1993). Training for uncertainty. Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies.Google Scholar
- Hoogendoorn, M., & Merk, R. J. (2012). Action selection using theory of mind: a case study in the domain of fighter pilot training. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Industrial, Engineering & Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA-AIE 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7345. Springer Verlag (pp. 521–533).
- Nyamsuren, E., & Taatgen, N. A. (2013c). The synergy of top-down and bottom-up attention in complex task: going beyond saliency models. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3181–3186).Google Scholar
- Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Perner, J. (1999). Theory of mind. In M. Bennett (Ed.), Developmental psychology (pp. 205–230). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: the role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.Google Scholar
- Seagull, F. J., & Gopher, D. (1997). Training head movement in visual scanning: an embedded approach to the development of piloting skills with helmet-mounted displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 163–180.Google Scholar
- Sodian, B., & Kristen, S. (2010). Theory of mind. In B. M. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. v. Müller (Eds.), Towards a theory of thinking (pp. 189–201). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Taatgen, N. A., van Oploo, M., Braaksma, J., & Niemantsverdriet, J. (2003). How to construct a believable opponent using cognitive modeling in the game of SET. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 201-206).Google Scholar
- Vandenbossche, J., Coomans, D., Homblé, K., & Deroost, N. (2014). The effect of cognitive aging on implicit sequence learning and dual tasking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(154), 1–7.Google Scholar
- Wellman, H. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wellman, H., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2000). Developing understandings of mind. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (Second ed., pp. 21–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar