Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):583–592. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1246

Dressing the mind properly for the game.

David Sally 1
PMCID: PMC1693129  PMID: 12689383

Abstract

Game theory as a theoretical and empirical approach to interaction has spread from economics to psychology, political science, sociology and biology. Numerous social interactions-foraging, talking, trusting, coordinating, competing-can be formally represented in a game with specific rules and strategies. These same interactions seem to rely on an interweaving of mental selves, but an effective strategy need not depend on explicit strategizing and higher mental capabilities, as less sentient creatures or even lines of software can play similar games. Human players are distinct because we are less consistent and our choices respond to elements of the setting that appear to be strategically insignificant. Recent analyses of this variable response have yielded a number of insights into the mental approach of human players: we often mentalize, but not always; we are endowed with social preferences; we distinguish among various types of opponents; we manifest different personalities; we are often guided by security concerns; and our strategic sophistication is usually modest.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (144.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baron-Cohen S., Leslie A. M., Frith U. Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):37–46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bush G, Luu P, Posner MI. Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jun;4(6):215–222. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01483-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cacioppo J. T., Priester J. R., Berntson G. G. Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Jul;65(1):5–17. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Castelli Fulvia, Frith Chris, Happé Francesca, Frith Uta. Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. Brain. 2002 Aug;125(Pt 8):1839–1849. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chartrand T. L., Bargh J. A. The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jun;76(6):893–910. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Csibra Gergely. Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):447–458. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. De Dreu C. K., Weingart L. R., Kwon S. Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May;78(5):889–905. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frith C. D., Frith U. Interacting minds--a biological basis. Science. 1999 Nov 26;286(5445):1692–1695. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5445.1692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Frith U., Morton J., Leslie A. M. The cognitive basis of a biological disorder: autism. Trends Neurosci. 1991 Oct;14(10):433–438. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(91)90041-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Frith Uta, Frith Christopher D. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):459–473. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gallagher Helen L., Jack Anthony I., Roepstorff Andreas, Frith Christopher D. Imaging the intentional stance in a competitive game. Neuroimage. 2002 Jul;16(3 Pt 1):814–821. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gallese Vittorio. The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: the quest for a common mechanism. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):517–528. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):17–52. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Happé F. G. An advanced test of theory of mind: understanding of story characters' thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. J Autism Dev Disord. 1994 Apr;24(2):129–154. doi: 10.1007/BF02172093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson Susan C. Detecting agents. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):549–559. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Meltzoff Andrew N., Decety Jean. What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):491–500. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mitchell P., Saltmarsh R., Russell H. Overly literal interpretations of speech in autism: understanding that messages arise from minds. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997 Sep;38(6):685–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01695.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nash J. F. Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1950 Jan;36(1):48–49. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Puce Aina, Perrett David. Electrophysiology and brain imaging of biological motion. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):435–445. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Rilling James, Gutman David, Zeh Thorsten, Pagnoni Giuseppe, Berns Gregory, Kilts Clinton. A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron. 2002 Jul 18;35(2):395–405. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00755-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. SOLARZ A. K. Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. J Exp Psychol. 1960 Apr;59:239–245. doi: 10.1037/h0047274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sabbagh M. A., Taylor M. Neural correlates of theory-of-mind reasoning: an event-related potential study. Psychol Sci. 2000 Jan;11(1):46–50. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sawyer J. The altruism scale: a measure of co-operative, individualistic, and competitive interpersonal orientation. AJS. 1966 Jan;71(4):407–416. doi: 10.1086/224129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tremblay L., Schultz W. Relative reward preference in primate orbitofrontal cortex. Nature. 1999 Apr 22;398(6729):704–708. doi: 10.1038/19525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Lancker D. Rags to riches: our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain Lang. 1997 Mar;57(1):1–11. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Lange P. A., Otten W., De Bruin E. M., Joireman J. A. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Oct;73(4):733–746. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.4.733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES