People sometimes make better decisions either by treating inanimate objects like strategic reasoners or by treating other reasoners as if they were inanimate objects. I advance “strategic agenthood attribution” as a psychological mechanism for modulating economic behavior. From a design perspective, inducing or suppressing the attribution of strategic abilities can influence aggregate social outcomes. Drawing from experiments in behavioral and institutional economics, developmental and social psychology, and human–robot interaction, I document human strategic reasoning in environments that mix typical adult humans with other kinds of entities. I then discuss anomalous misattributions of strategic agenthood and non-agenthood, with special attention to settings in which two types of error—either attributing strategic reasoning abilities to objects that can’t think, or failing to attribute such abilities to typical human subjects—actually led to better economic outcomes. Because over- and under-mentalizing are endemic to human decision-making processes, game theory can be applied to improve interaction design, whether or not a given interaction is a game. I show that the flexible nature of human agenthood attribution increases the scope of game theory in some places, reduces it elsewhere, and generally introduces behavioral economics as a promising source of theory for human interactions with equivocal agents.
BainbridgeW.HartJ.KimE.ScassellatiB. (2010). The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1), 41–52.
4.
BhattM.CamererC. F. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of strategic thinking. In: DecetyJ.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BinmoreK. (2005). Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BlountS. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 131–144.
7.
BlytheP. W.ToddP. M.MillerG. F. (2000). How motion reveals intention: Categorizing social interactions. In: GigerenzerG.ToddP. M. (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 257–285). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BreazealC.ScassellatiB. (1999). How to build robots that make friends and influence people. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’99): Human and Environment Friendly Robots with High Intelligence and Emotional Quotients (pp. 858–863). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
9.
CampbellM.EgerstedtM.HowJ. P.MurrayR. M. (2010). Autonomous driving in urban environments: approaches, lessons and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1928), 4649–4672.
10.
ColmanA. MPulfordB. D.OmtzigtD.al-NowaihiA. (2011). Learning to cooperate without awareness in multiplayer minimal social situations. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 201–227.
11.
DavisD. D.WilliamsA. W. (1986). The effects of rent asymmetries in posted offer markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 7(3), 303–316.
12.
DavisD. D.WilliamsA. W. (1991). The Hayek hypothesis in experimental auctions: Institutional effects and market power. Economic Inquiry, 29(2), 261–274.
13.
DennettD. C. (1989). The intentional stance (p. 400). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
EpleyN.AkalisS.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114.
15.
FeriF.IrlenbuschB.SutterM. (2009). Efficiency gains from team-based coordination—Large-scale experimental evidence. Preprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, 1–39.
16.
FreyS.GoldstoneR. L. (2013). Cyclic game dynamics driven by iterated reasoning. PloS one, 8, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056416.
17.
GergelyG.NádasdyZ.CsibraG.BíróS. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age, Cognition56, 165–193.
18.
GodeD.SunderS. (1993). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 119–137.
19.
GigerenzerG.ToddP. (2000). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
HappéF. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 129–154.
21.
HarrisL.FiskeS. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847.
22.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252.
23.
HenrichJ.BoydR.BowlesS.CamererC.FehrE.GintisH.McElreathR.… TracerD. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815.
24.
HillE.SallyD. F. (2004). Dilemmas and bargains: Autism, theory of mind, cooperation and fairness. SSRN Working Paper Series, 74.
25.
JamisonJ.KarlanD.SchechterL. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 477–488.
26.
KalishC. (2002). Children’s predictions of consistency in people’s actions. Cognition, 84(3), 237–265.
27.
KeysarB.LinS.BarrD. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25–41.
28.
KirmanA. P.VriendN. J. (2000). Learning to be loyal. A study of the Marseille fish market. In: Delli GattiD.GallegatiM.KirmanA. P. (Eds.), Interaction and market structure: Essays on heterogeneity in economics (pp. 33–56). Berlin: Springer.
29.
KollockP. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 313–345.
30.
KovacsA. M.TeglasE.EndressA. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834.
31.
LansingJ. (1987). Balinese “water temples” and the management of irrigation. American Anthropologist, 89(2), 326–341.
32.
LansingJ.KremerJ. (1993). Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged fitness Landscape. American Anthropologist, 95, 97–114.
33.
LevinD. TKillingsworthS. S.SaylorM. M. (2008). Concepts about the capabilities of computers and robots: A test of the scope of adults’ theory of mind. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 57–64.
34.
LevinD. T.SaylorM. M.KillingsworthS. S.GordonS. M.KawamuraK. (2012). Tests of concepts about different kinds of minds: Predictions about the behavior of computers, robots, and people. Human–Computer Interaction, in review.
35.
LeyensJ.-P.CortesB.DemoulinS.DovidioJ. F.FiskeS. T.GauntR.PaladinoM.-P.… VaesJ. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism: The 2002 Tajfel lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703–717.
36.
MichotteA. E. (1950). The emotional significance of movement. In: ReymertM. L. (Ed.), Feelings and emotions (pp. 114–126). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
MillerG. (1997). Protean primates: The evolution of adaptive unpredictability in competition and courtship. In WhitenA.ByrneR. (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MillerG. F.CliffD. (1994). Protean behavior in dynamic games: Arguments for the co-evolution of pursuit-evasion tactics. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, 3 (pp. 411–420). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
39.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
40.
NassC.MoonY.CarneyP. (1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093–1110.
41.
NationK.PennyS. (2008). Sensitivity to eye gaze in autism: Is it normal? Is it automatic? Is it social?Development and Psychopathology, 20(01), 79–97.
42.
OrtmannA.HertwigR. (2002). The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology, Experimental Economics, 5, 111–131.
43.
PyersJ. (2006). Constructing the social mind: Language and false-belief understanding. In: EnfieldN. J.LevinsonS. C., Wenner-Gren Foundation (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 207–228). Oxford: Berg Publishers.
44.
RutteC. G.WilkeH. A. M. (1987). Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the environment as determinants of behavior in the resource dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 208–216.
45.
SanfeyA. G. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758.
46.
SchellingT. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ShepherdS. V. (2010). Following gaze: Gaze-following behavior as a window into social cognition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. Frontiers Media SA 4.
49.
ToddP.GigerenzerG. (2004). Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 727–741.
50.
van HuyckJ.BattalioR.BeilR. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.
51.
van HuyckJBattalioR.BeilR. (1991). Strategic uncertainty, equilibrium selection, and coordination failure in average opinion games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(3), 885–910.
52.
WellmanH.LiuD. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks, Child Development, 75(2), 523–541.
53.
WinterE.ZamirS. (2005). An experiment with ultimatum bargaining in a changing environment. Japanese Economic Review, 56, 363–385.
54.
WoodwardA. L. (2005). Infants’ understanding of the actions involved in joint attention. Joint Attention: Communication and Other Minds: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology, 110–128.
