Netherlands

How people reach consensus in social networks with locally distributed interactions is relevant to understanding collective group decision-making, problem-solving, and voting. However, while the importance of theory of mind in consensus problems has been hypothesized, little work has been done to test it systematically. We present both computational modeling and behavioral experiments designed to test the impact of theory of mind on individual choices within such consensus networks. We test 2,108 computational models informed by theoretical work on a graph-coloring consensus task to compare models using theory of mind to other behavioral parameters. We then use behavioral responses from 107 participants in a similar task to evaluate support for theory of mind in consensus formation. We find that the computational model that best accounts for prior behavioral data uses theory of mind, and our behavioral results likewise support use of theory of mind over other potential decision-making models.

**Authors:**

Daphne Barretto: Princeton University; Raja Marjieh: Princeton University; Tom Griffiths: Princeton University 

CogSci 2024

Reaching Consensus through Theory of Mind in Social Networks with Locally Distributed Interactions

### Welcome to CogSci Conference 2025!

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was a hybrid meeting held in San Francisco. 

<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/amvr/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>

#### About

The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.

#### Our History 

* **Society Creation**<br>
The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit professional organization in Massachusetts in 1979. The organizing committee included Roger Schank, Allan Collins, Donald Norman, and a number of other scholars from psychology, linguistics, computer science, and philosophy. 
<br><br>
* **Conference Creation**<br>
The first conference on cognitive science was held at La Jolla, California in August, 1979, and has occurred annually since then. The proceedings of each conference are published, and those from most years are available through Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The annual proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference represent a major source of information on new work and new ideas in the scientific study of thinking. In 1990, the Society, with help from an anonymous donor, established the David Marr Prize for the best student paper at each annual meeting.
<br><br>
* **Journal Creation**<br>
The Journal, Cognitive Science, began publication in 1976, and is now published by Wiley-Blackwell. The Executive Editor is currently Richard P. Cooper of Birkbeck, University of London, and there are 18 Associate Editors and a 30-member editorial board. It serves as the premier outlet for research reports that intersect two or more disciplines. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society. The Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society voted in late 2006 to found a new journal, Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS). The Editor in Chief is Wayne Gray, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The journal seeks to fill a niche not occupied by Cognitive Science Journal or other cognitive science journals. Membership in the Society includes a subscription to Cognitive Science and TopiCS. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society.
<br><br>

#### Code of Conduct

By attending the CogSci 2025 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s **[Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ChPuihLy6jE_BWqfO7J2KKgX35JW2zsM/view?usp=sharing)**.
<br><br>


You need to log in with the email address you registered with. 

Login credentials were sent to you from Underline -  subject line "Welcome to the CogSci 2025 Conference". Please be sure to check your spam/promotional inbox  if you do not see an email confirmation right away.





Please log in to join this event.

To access the site, please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/).

If you are registered and feel like you are seeing this message by mistake, please make sure you are logged in with the same email that you registered with. 

Please register!

CogSci 2025

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

poster

The 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was an in-person meeting held in Rotterdam, The Netherlands at the Postillion Hotel & Conference Centre.

**ON-DEMAND PROGRAM ACCESS AFTER THE CONFERENCE**<br>
Recordings of the invited program are now available. You can access them by clicking on the 'Schedule' icon on the left. Select view by week and navigate to the day and time slot of the recording you wish to view. Click on the time slot to access the recording.

Recordings available (click on each recording to view):

**Thursday, July 25**<br>
0900: [Keynote Speaker Morgan Barense on Enhancing real-world event memory](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/17997/lecture/99084-dynamics-between-minds-and-the-environment)<br>
1000: [Gleitman Award Winner Isabelle Dautriche on Language Foundations: Insights from acquisition, communication, cognition, and more](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18000/lecture/99085-gleitman-talk)<br>
1415: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds and the environment](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18016&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1700: [Rumelhart Prize Presentation Speaker Alison Gopnik on Exploit, explore, empower: Three ages and three intelligences](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18028/lecture/99161-rp1-rumelhart-prize-presentation)<br>

**Friday, July 26**<br>
0900: [C.L. de Carvalho-Heineken Prize Keynote Speaker Kia Nobre on Focusing in memory](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18035/lecture/99162-hp1-c-l-de-carvalho-heineken-prize-keynote-address)<br>
1030: [Rumelhart Symposium: Childhood as exploration](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18038/lecture/100346-childhood-as-exploration)<br>
1415: [Elman Prize Symposium](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18053&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1600: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18065&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1745: [Keynote Speaker Andrea E. Martin on Neural dynamics encode the structure and statistics of language](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18077/lecture/99271-neural-dynamics-encode-the-structure-and-statistics-of-language)<br>

**Saturday, July 27**<br>
0900: [Keynote Speaker Gregor Schöner on How higher cognition emerges from the dynamics of strongly interacting neural populations](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18083/lecture/99273-dynamics-within-the-mind)<br>
1000: [Glushko Talks](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18086&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1500: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics within minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18100&searchGroup=lecture)<br>


#### **CogSci 2024 Program Book**
<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/cble/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>


**The Program Book can be downloaded [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yRVp1cBqRnAbdYi4GXWV_pZeyWNsRquv/view?usp=sharing).**

#### **Letter from the President**

Welcome to the 2024 Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Rotterdam! CogSci 2024 brings together a large community of cognitive scientists who have traveled here from around the world, as well as a smaller group of remote presenters. I would like to extend an especially warm welcome to our first-time CogSci meeting attendees, and hope that 
their experience inspires them to join our future meetings for many years to come.

I want to thank this year’s conference co-chairs, Larissa K Samuelson, Stefan Frank, Mariya Toneva, Allyson Mackey, and Eliot Hazeltine, for putting together an amazing series of invited talks and symposia around the theme of Dynamics of Cognition. The co-chairs also deserve credit for handling a record-breaking number of submissions and producing a truly exciting conference program 

Beyond the invited talks and symposia dedicated to this year’s conference theme, I would like to highlight the presentations and events honoring the 
Rumelhart, Elman, Gleitman and C .L . de Carvalho Heineken prize winners, including the Rumelhart reception on Thursday. As you may know, we are recording all of the invited talks and symposia, and all prize-winners’ talks, and will be making this content available after the conference. 

The Cognitive Science Society relies on the volunteer efforts of our Governing Board members who work on matters related to our membership; conference policies; diversity and inclusion, international, and outreach initiatives; prizes and much more. We welcome interest from Society members who would like to become more involved in what we do. The 
Society is deeply grateful to Rick Dale and Andrea Bender, who serve as editors of the two Society journals, Cognitive Science and Topics in Cognitive Science respectively. We especially acknowledge our editors’ generosity in donating their stipends each year to D&I and outreach efforts. 

This year’s Annual Meeting depends critically on the support of Marischal De Armond and his team at Podium Conference Specialists: Sharon Zwack, Cendrine De Vis, Sarah-Kate Burke, and Rachel Waller worked tirelessly to secure the venue and handled a multitude of logistical and organizational issues, from arranging coffee breaks and receptions to making sure that a huge number of posters fits comfortably into the available space. Finally, and importantly, I would like to acknowledge the Cognitive Science Society Executive Officer, Erica Wojcik, for managing the complex and ever expanding sphere of our Society’s activities.

I hope you enjoy this year’s meeting and the many different opportunities to engage with the vibrant community of cognitive scientists gathered here. I also hope you get a chance to explore the great city of Rotterdam with its many attractions, museums, restaurants and scenic views. If you’d like to talk more about our Society, or simply want to say hello, please stop by!

![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/3c66d0e21fff30e204df1138ffd15173.jpeg)

**Anna Papafragou**  
President, Cognitive Science 
Society 2023-2024

**CODE OF CONDUCT**<br>
By attending the CogSci 2024 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s [Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-6KkptF0Gn3ZYGJDlpqpwTdImw45Ng0/view?usp=drive_link).

**ABOUT THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE SOCIETY**<br>
The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.
<br><br>

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

It looks like you are not registered for this event. 

To access the site please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/). 

The 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

Do decision makers’ strategies of integrating different risks depend on framing? In the present study, participants were either instructed that they were choosing between two solutions to a complex problem or between two generic options. The former was framed as an industrial scenario that required choices between modifying and replacing a module (Adapt or Exchange). The risk was higher for Adapt to harm the product and for Exchange to harm the plant. Participants were either told that the consequences of both risks were equally severe (content-same group), or that harming the plant was worse (content-different group). A third group received a generic task framing (no-content group). We expected framing to affect risk integration, inducing different choices and strategies in the content-same than the no-content group. The data refuted this hypothesis, but decisions clearly diverged from the content-different group. These findings question whether ecological validity can be enhanced merely by framing.

**Authors:**

Romy Müller: Technische Universität Dresden; Alexander Blunk: Technische Universität Dresden

Adapt/Exchange decisions or generic choices: Does framing influence how people integrate qualitatively different risks?

Trust is an important factor in interaction with automated agents. This study tracks users’ trust calibration to automated agents in a vocabulary learning task. We hypothesize that trust declines as agent reliability declines and that anthropomorphism should buffer against this decline.
Replicating de Visser et al. (2016), 60 participants guessed the meaning of 96 foreign words in a 4x4x2 mixed experiment. In each trial, they guessed alone, then got an agent’s recommendation and gave trust judgments, and made a final decision. Four pedagogical agents varying in anthropomorphism (within-subject: human, robot, smart speaker, computer) recommended answers with decreasing reliability (within-subject: 100%, 67.5%, 50%, 0%). Furthermore, participants either did or did not watch an introductory video about the agents (between-subject). Behavioral and judgment data were analysed via mixed-effects models and ANOVAs. Two-way interaction shows that trust declined differently in various agents, but there is little evidence supporting trust resilience in any agent.

**Authors:**

Fransisca Hapsari: Technische Universität Darmstadt; Ronja Isabella Stemler: Technische Universität Darmstadt; Stephanie Pieschl: Technische Universität Darmstadt

Trust Resilience in Pedagogical Agents: Will Anthropomorphism Help Against Trust Decline?

People solve a myriad of coordination problems without explicit communication every day. A recent theoretical account, virtual bargaining, proposes that, to coordinate, we often simulate a negotiation process, and act according to what we would be most likely to agree to do if we were to bargain. But very often several equivalent tacit agreements — or virtual bargains — are available, which poses the challenge of figuring out which one to follow. Here we take inspiration from virtual bargaining to develop a cognitive modeling framework for dynamic coordination problems. We assume that players recognize their common goal, identify one or more possible tacit agreements based on situational features, observe the history of their partner’s choices to infer the most likely tacit agreement, and play their role in the joint plan. We test this approach in two experiments (n = 125 and n = 133) based on a dynamic coordination game designed to elicit agreement-based behavior. We fit our model at the individual level and compare its performance against alternative models. Across four different conditions, our model performs best among the set of models considered. Behavioral results are also consistent with players sustaining coordination and cooperation in the task by converging on tacitly agreed strategies or “virtual bargains”.

**Authors:**

Arthur Le Pargneux: University of Warwick; Hossam Zeitoun: University of Warwick; Emmanouil Konstantinidis: University of Warwick; Nick Chater: University of Warwick

Coordination in dynamic interactions by converging on tacitly agreed joint plans

Humans can learn from observing diverse others, even when they know little about their exact preferences, skills, or goals. Yet, while our remarkable social learning abilities have been a popular research topic, prior work has generally been limited to tasks in which observer and demonstrator share the same value function. 
To address this discrepancy, we use the socially correlated bandit task, where participants explore positively correlated, rather than identical, environments in groups. We extend existing work using this paradigm by comparing behaviour across individual and social rounds within participants.
We replicate findings that humans are able to use correlated social information effectively, with behaviour being best described by a model noisily integrates social information. In comparing individual and social search behaviour, we find that social learning partially replaces directed exploration. In conclusion, we find that humans use social information flexibly, employing it as an exploration tool, despite our differences.

**Authors:**

Alexandra Witt: University of Tübingen; Wataru Toyokawa: RIKEN Center for Brain Science; Kevin N Lala: University of St Andrews; Wolfgang Gaissmaier: University of Konstanz; Charley M Wu: University of Tübingen

Social learning functions as an exploration tool in correlated environments

Commitment is a defining feature of human rationality. This study explores a social origin of spontaneous intentional commitment, assuming commitment in individual decision-making arises from an internalized self-presentation, transferring the audience of commitment from a real partner to an inner eye perspective. To test this "social inner eye" hypothesis, we exposed participants to different social contexts while maintaining the individual nature of the task. Across three experiments, we found that (a) individuals consistently showed stronger commitment when acting in front of others, (b) different social contexts had different impacts on the process of commitment formation, with the mere outside observer accelerating commitment, while a parallel player delays it, (c) participants spontaneously coordinated their intentions to avoid conflicts when playing with another parallel player, despite no coordination was required. Taken together, we demonstrated how social context influences the strength, content, and timing of individual commitment.

**Authors:**

Shaozhe Cheng: Zhejiang University; Jingyin Zhu: Zhejiang University; Jifan Zhou: Zhejiang University; Mowei Shen: Zhejiang University; Tao Gao: University of California - Los Angeles

Intentional commitment as a spontaneous presentation of self

There has been considerable interest exploring how the utility of an outcome impacts the probability with which it is mentally simulated. Earlier studies using varying methodologies have yielded divergent conclusions with different directions of the influence. To directly examine such mental process, we employed a random generation paradigm in which all the outcomes were either equally (i.e., followed a uniform distribution) or unequally (i.e., a binomial distribution) probable. While our results revealed individual differences in how the utility influenced responses, the overall findings suggested that it is the outcomes' probabilities, not their utilities, that guide this process. Notably, an initial bias emerged, with individuals displaying a tendency to start with smaller values when all outcomes are equally likely. Our findings offer insights into the benefits of studying the mental sampling processes and provide empirical support for particular sampling models in this domain.

**Authors:**

Yun-Xiao Li: University of Warwick; Johanna Falben: University of Amsterdam; Lucas Castillo: University of Warwick; Jake Spicer: University of Warwick; Jian-Qiao Zhu: Princeton University; Nick Chater: University of Warwick; Adam Sanborn: University of Warwick

Probability, but not utility, influences repeated mental simulations of risky events

Whether logical inference is available without language is highly debated. One such inference is the disjunctive syllogism (A Or B, Not A, Therefore B). Evidence from non-linguistic search tasks suggests that that the syllogism may be unavailable before age 3 (Mody & Carey, 2016). However, in a replication of the same task using language (i.e., verbal negation), even 2.5-year-olds succeeded (Grigoroglou, et al., 2019). Here we explore the role of language in children’s logical reasoning. 2.5-, 3- and 4-year-olds performed a non-linguistic search task, after a short training in reasoning by exclusion. Half of the children received linguistic training (e.g., heard “there is no coin in X cup”); half received non-linguistic training (i.e., saw that one location was empty). Results show that 2.5-year-olds who received linguistic training succeeded in disjunctive syllogism but those who received non-linguistic training failed. We conclude that the presence of verbal negation facilitated logical reasoning.

**Authors:**

Myrto Grigoroglou: University of Toronto; Salima Hackeek: University of Toronto; Patricia Ganea: University of Toronto

Logical language and the development of reasoning by the disjunctive syllogism

Efficient cognitive algorithms enhance problem-solving in many cognitive domains but can be difficult to discover and use. Classical studies of seriation suggest that children struggle to apply algorithmic strategies in a simple sorting problem, yet it remains unclear why. We examined children's solutions to a modified variant of the sorting problem in which object ranks were hidden. Children independently discovered at least two efficient algorithmic solutions to this problem. Older children were more efficient sorters.

**Authors:**

Huiwen Alex Yang: University of California, Berkeley; Bill Thompson: University of California, Berkeley; Celeste Kidd: University of California, Berkeley

Children spontaneously discover efficient sorting algorithms in a seriation task

Spatial abilities and their developmental trajectory are an important part of human intelligence and have been the subject of numerous studies, including mental rotation and perspective taking. However, little is known about these processes in under-represented populations. Here we report a study on 10-year-old children in such a context who participated in four spatial tasks – animal picture mental rotation, abstract figures mental rotation, memory for object location, and picture perspective taking. Results revealed no male advantage on any task, and better performance in the abstract figures task for girls following an alternative school program in mathematics. Furthermore, the analysis found no correlation between the mental rotation and perspective taking performance. Research on under-represented populations is an important drive towards greater generalizability of findings and conclusions

**Authors:**

Elena Andonova: New Bulgarian University

The Role of Gender and Curriculum in Mental Rotation & Perspective Taking

Learned fears of stimuli from phylogenetically fear-relevant categories (such as snakes and spiders) tend to be significantly more resistant to extinction than those from fear-irrelevant categories (such as birds and butterflies.) Olsson et al. (2005) demonstrated that representations of outgroup members, as defined by race, can act as fear-relevant stimuli in a classical conditioning paradigm. It is not as clear, however, whether (and how) persistent fear of outgroup members can be acquired vicariously. We investigate whether observers of interactions with negative outcomes associated with representations of outgroup members develop extinction-resistant fears. Our results indicate that outgroup members can act as fear-relevant stimuli in an observational scenario. The effect is not sensitive to self-relevance manipulations; importantly, however, other-oriented empathy may reduce the tendency toward forming extinction-resistant conditioned responses to outgroup members. Implications of these preliminary results, including limitations and suggestions for future research, are discussed.

**Authors:**

David A. Bosch: New York University; Andreas Olsson: Clinical Neuroscience, Division Psychology

Premium content

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2024

Adapt/Exchange decisions or generic choices: Does framing influence how people integrate qualitatively different risks?

Similar lecture

Theories of Mind as Languages of Thought for Thought about Thought