No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Can group representations based on relational cues warrant the rich inferences typically drawn from group membership?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2022
Abstract
Pietraszewski's model – though promising in many respects – needs to be extended so that it can explain the multitude of rich inferences that people draw from group membership. In this commentary, we highlight some facets of group thinking, especially from the field of developmental psychology, that cannot be unambiguously accounted for by a model that is built solely on relational cues.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Liberman, Z., Gerdin, E., Kinzler, K. D., & Shaw, A. (2020). (Un)common knowledge: Children use social relationships to determine who knows what. Developmental Science, 23(6), e12962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., & Kinzler, K. D. (2017). The origins of social categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 556–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, M., & Chalik, L. (2013). Social categories as markers of intrinsic interpersonal obligations. Psychological Science, 24(6), 999–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shutts, K., Kinzler, K. D., McKee, C. B., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Social information guides infants’ selection of foods. Journal of Cognition and Development, 10(1–2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soley, G. (2019). What do group members share? The privileged status of cultural knowledge for children. Cognitive Science, 43(10), e12786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Toward a computational theory of social groups: A finite set of cognitive primitives for representing any and all social groups in the context of conflict
Related commentaries (29)
A neuroscientific perspective on the computational theory of social groups
Advantages and limitations of representing groups in terms of recursive utilities
Are we there yet? Every computational theory needs a few black boxes, including theories about groups
Beyond folk-sociology: Extending Pietraszewski's model to large-group dynamics
Can group representations based on relational cues warrant the rich inferences typically drawn from group membership?
Coalitionary psychology and group dynamics on social media
Compassion within conflict: Toward a computational theory of social groups informed by maternal brain physiology
Conciliation and meta-contrast are important for understanding how people assign group memberships during conflict situations
Developmental antecedents of representing “group” behavior: A commentary on Pietraszewski's theory of groups
Group? What group? A computational model of the group needs a psychology of “us” (not “them”)
How do we know who may replace each other in triadic conflict roles?
Interacting with others while reacting to the environment
Internal versus external group conflicts
Latent structure learning as an alternative computation for group inference
Learning agents that acquire representations of social groups
More than one way to skin a cat: Addressing the arbitration problem in developmental science
On vagueness and parochialism in psychological research on groups
Paranoia reveals the complexity in assigning individuals to groups on the basis of inferred intentions
Private versus public: A dual model for resource-constrained conflict representations
Psychological and actual group formation: Conflict is neither necessary nor sufficient
Shadow banning, astroturfing, catfishing, and other online conflicts where beliefs about group membership diverge
Shared intentionality and the representation of groups; or, how to build a socially adept robot
Signals and cues of social groups
Social groups and the computational conundrums of delays, proximity, and loyalty
Societies and other kinds of social groups
The labelled container: Conceptual development of social group representations
Towards a computational network theory of social groups
Triadic conflict “primitives” can be reduced to welfare trade-off ratios
Using laboratory intergroup conflict and riots as a “stress test”
Author response
More “us,” less “them”: An appeal for pluralism – and stand-alone computational theorizing – in our science of social groups