Cited by 219Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Inferring on the intentions of others by hierarchical Bayesian learning

Open access
Diaconescu, Andreea O., Mathys, Christoph, Weber, Lilian A. E., Daunizeau, Jean, Kasper, Lars, Lomakina, Ekaterina I., Fehr, Ernst, Stephan, Klaas E.·2014·PLoS Computational Biology

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The HGF explains learning and decision-making under volatility better than other commonly used models.

    “This formulation has found successful application in several recent studies with healthy participants, showing that the HGF explains learning and decision-making under volatility better than other commonly used models (111–113).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]Osborne MA, Garnett R, Roberts SJ (2009) Gaussian processes for global optimization. 3rd international conference on learning and intelligent optimization (LION3). pp. 1–15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diaconescu, A. O., Mathys, C., Weber, L. A. E., Daunizeau, J., Kasper, L., Lomakina, E. I., Fehr, E., & Stephan, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Diaconescu, Andreea O.
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2014-09-04
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e1003810
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2076243793
Cited by
219
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
FWCI
31.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • SDL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593)
  • University College London
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
intention inference, advice taking, volatility estimation, social cognition, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, probabilistic reinforcement learning, economic games, individual differences, social decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Decision Making, Games, Experimental, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Social Behavior, Intention, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review