Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:47:40.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationalization as representational exchange: Scope and mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Fiery Cushman Open the ORCID record for Fiery Cushman [Opens in a new window]
Fiery Cushman*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA02138cushman@fas.harvard.eduhttps://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentaries suggest many important improvements to the target article. They clearly distinguish two varieties of rationalization – the traditional “motivated reasoning” model, and the proposed representational exchange model – and show that they have distinct functions and consequences. They describe how representational exchange occurs not only by post hoc rationalization but also by ex ante rationalization and other more dynamic processes. They argue that the social benefits of representational exchange are at least as important as its direct personal benefits. Finally, they construe our search for meaning, purpose, and narrative – both individually and collectively – as a variety of representational exchange. The result is a theory of rationalization as representational exchange both wider in scope and better defined in mechanism.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e55
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C. L., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009) Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition 113(3):329–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakkour, A., Palombo, D. J., Zylberberg, A., Kang, Y. H., Reid, A., Verfaellie, M., Shadlen, M. N., & Shohamy, D. (2019) The hippocampus supports deliberation during value-based decisions. eLife 8. doi:10.7554/elife.46080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F. (1991) Meanings of life. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 6, pp. 1–62. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. (2011) The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:10918–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R. & Schacter, D. L. (2008) The brain's default network: Anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1124:1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cushman, F. A. & Morris, A. (2015) Habitual control of goal selection in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 112(45):13817–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daw, N. D. & Dayan, P. (2014) The algorithmic anatomy of model-based evaluation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1655):20130478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P. & Dolan, R. J. (2011) Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors. Neuron 69(6):1204–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daw, N. D., Niv, Y. & Dayan, P. (2005) Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience 8(12):1704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D. C. (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deserno, L., Huys, Q. J. M., Boehme, R., Buchert, R., Heinze, H.-J., Grace, A. A., Dolan, R. J., Heinz, A. & Schlagenhauf, F. (2015) Ventral striatal dopamine reflects behavioral and neural signatures of model-based control during sequential decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112(5):1595–1600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezfouli, A. & Balleine, B. W. (2012) Habits, action sequences and reinforcement learning. European Journal of Neuroscience 35(7):1036–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezfouli, A. & Balleine, B. W. (2013) Actions, action sequences and habits: evidence that goal-directed and habitual action control are hierarchically organized. PLOS Computational Biology 9(12):e1003364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezfouli, A., Lingawi, N. W. & Balleine, B. W. (2014) Habits as action sequences: hierarchical action control and changes in outcome value. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1655):20130482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, R. J. & Dayan, P. (2013) Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron 80(2):312–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershman, S. J. (2018) The successor representation: Its computational logic and neural substrates. Journal of Neuroscience 38(33):7193–7200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gershman, S. J. (2019) How to never be wrong. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 26(1):13–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1488-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gershman, S. J., Markman, A. B. & Otto, A. R. (2014) Retrospective revaluation in sequential decision making: A tale of two systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(1):182–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gläscher, J., Daw, N., Dayan, P. & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010) States versus rewards: Dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron 66:585–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glimcher, P. W. (2011) Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: The dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(Suppl. 3):15647–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F. & Goodman, N. D. (2015) Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(2):217–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasselkus, B. R. (2011) The meaning of everyday occupation. Slack.Google Scholar
Hawthorne-Madell, D. & Goodman, N. D. (2019) Reasoning about social sources to learn from actions and outcomes. Decision 6(1):17–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1973) Law, legislation and liberty, vol. 1: Rules and order. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958/2013) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. L., Esber, G. R., McDannald, M. A., Gruber, A. J., Hernandez, A., Mirenzi, A. & Schoenbaum, G. (2012) Orbitofrontal cortex supports behavior and learning using inferred but not cached values. Science 338(6109):953–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2006) The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist 61:651–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleiman-Weiner, M., Ho, M. K., Austerweil, J. L., Littman, M. L. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2016) Coordinate to cooperate or compete: Abstract goals and joint intentions in social interaction. In: Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Papafragou, A., Grodner, D. J., Mirman, D. & Trueswell, J.. Cognitive Science Society. https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kool, W., Gershman, S. J. & Cushman, F. A. (2017) Cost-benefit arbitration between multiple reinforcement-learning systems. Psychological Science 28(9):1321–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
McCoy, J., Paul, L. & Ullman, T. (2019) Modal prospection. In: Metaphysics and cognitive science, ed. Goldman, A. I. & McLaughlin, B. P., pp. 235–67. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, K. J., Shenhav, A. & Ludvig, E. A. (2019) Habits without values. Psychological Review 126(2):292–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mook, D. G. (1983) In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist 38(4):379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, A. & Cushman, F. (2019) Model-free RL or action sequences? Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84(3):231–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (2018) Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin.Google Scholar
Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J. & Wong, P. T. (1987) Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology 42(1):44–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxe, R. (2005) Against simulation: The argument from error. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:174–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, W., Dayan, P. & Montague, P. R. (1997) A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 275(5306):1593–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M. & Dolan, R. J. (2010) Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science 21(9):1231–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610379235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M. & Cohen, J. D. (2013) The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron 79(2):217–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, D. A. & Daw, N. D. (2011) Neural correlates of forward planning in a spatial decision task in humans. Journal of Neuroscience 31(14):5526–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. & Rabb, N. (2016) Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge. Psychological Science 27(11):1451–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R. & Bonoma, T. V. (1971) Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist 26(8):685–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2002) Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review 109(3):451–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20(4):410–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:675–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2014) A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, T. D., Siegel, M., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Gershman, S. J. (2016) Coalescing the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Papafragou, A., Grodner, Daniel J., Mirman, D. & Trueswell, J.. Cognitive Science Society. https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/index.html.Google Scholar
Vikbladh, O. M., Meager, M. R., King, J., Blackmon, K., Devinsky, O., Shohamy, D., Burgess, N. & Daw, N. D. (2019) Hippocampal contributions to model-based planning and spatial memory. Neuron 102(3):683–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Hippel, W. & Trivers, R. (2011) Reflections on self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(1):41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, D. M. & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994) Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(6):1049–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doll, B. B., Duncan, K. D., Simon, D. A., Shohamy, D. & Daw, N. D. (2015) Model-based choices involve prospective neural activity. Nature Neuroscience 18(5):767–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed