---
title: "A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect — Barnett 2021"
description: "The weak evidence effect occurs when an argument that only slightly supports a conclusion leaves listeners less convinced of it. 70 references."
authors: ["Samuel A. Barnett", "Thomas L. Griffiths", "Robert D. Hawkins"]
year: 2021
venue: "arXiv:2112.03799"
source: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03799"
doi: "10.48550/arxiv.2112.03799"
arxiv: "2112.03799"
licence: "arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)"
licence_url: "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/barnett-2021-pragmatic-account-weak-evidence-effect/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/barnett-2021-pragmatic-account-weak-evidence-effect/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2021](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2021/page/7/) / A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect

# A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect

**Authors:** Samuel A. Barnett, [Thomas L. Griffiths](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/thomas-l-griffiths/) and [Robert D. Hawkins](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/robert-d-hawkins/) · **Year:** 2021 · **Venue:** [arXiv:2112.03799](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/open-mind/) ([Open Mind 2021](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/open-mind/2021/)) · **Publisher:** [The MIT Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/the-mit-press/) · **Licence:** [arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)](http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03799) · [PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.03799) · [DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2112.03799](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2112.03799) · [arXiv 2112.03799](https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03799) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4292641154)

**Citations:** 7 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The weak evidence effect occurs when an argument that only slightly supports a conclusion leaves listeners *less* convinced of it. Earlier explanations rely on asocial mechanisms, such as biased generation of alternative hypotheses or order-dependent updating. These explain why the effect exists but not when it should appear. The authors extend the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework with a motivated speaker. This speaker's utility combines an epistemic (truthfulness) term with a weighted persuasive term aimed at a goal state. A listener who inverts this speaker reasons that an advocate would have shown stronger evidence if any existed, so weak evidence signals that it is missing. The model therefore predicts backfire only for listeners who expect speakers to present their strongest evidence. To test this, the authors created the Stick Contest, a paradigm that records each participant's expectations as a speaker alongside their judgments as a listener. Participants split into pragmatic-like and literal-like groups, and only the first group reliably showed the effect. A pragmatic model allowing for both groups fit the data better than asocial alternatives. The result links a classic decision bias to reasoning about a source's goals.

## Key points
- The speaker utility is U = U_epi + β·U_pers. Setting β = 0 gives back the standard informative RSA speaker, and α is the soft-max temperature. The listener L1 inverts this speaker, with the recursion grounded in a literal listener L0.
- The Stick Contest measures speaker expectations and listener belief updates within the same participants, with the speaker phase always presented first.
- Participants clustered into those expecting strongly persuasive evidence and those expecting neutral, informative evidence. The weak evidence effect appeared reliably only in the first cluster.
- Model fitting used MCMC with four chains yielding 1,000 posterior samples, discarding the first 7,500 steps as warm-up and thinning by keeping every 100th sample. The study was pre-registered on OSF, and the code is at github.com/s-a-barnett/bayesian-persuasion.
- The authors add "rhetorical sampling" as a fourth data-generation assumption alongside weak, strong, and pedagogical sampling. They note that uncertainty about a speaker's agenda could instead produce a strong evidence effect (Appendix E).

## Interesting ideas
- Adding a single weighted persuasion term to an otherwise truthful speaker turns neutral informativeness into one end of a continuum, which makes speaker bias a tunable, inspectable parameter.
- When a motivated speaker leaves out stronger support, the omission itself becomes evidence that no such support exists, much like an implicature driven by the speaker's interests.
- Rather than showing that an effect exists, the authors test the conditions under which it should and should not appear, which separates competing accounts.
- Tagging data with how it was generated (pedagogical versus rhetorical) changes how much a learner should trust it, even when the content is identical.
- Measuring each participant's expectations about speakers and then explaining their judgments by group shows that one model with a mixture of reasoner types can fit diverse behaviour.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): speech-act frames could carry an explicit persuasion weight for each speaker, such as the fox flattering the crow, so the reader discounts that speaker's claims in a traceable way.
- **I2** (frames): the implicature module could derive "nothing better was available" inferences whenever a known advocate offers only a weak reason, and record the step in the explanation.
- **I3** (learn): evaluations could pair each pragmatic test with a negative control where the speaker is neutral, and check that discounting does not fire there.
- **I4** (world): facts entering the world of a text could store their source and the source's goal, so that holdings and states asserted by interested characters get lower confidence.
- **I5** (answer): readers answering fable QA could keep both a literal and a skeptical interpretation, and choose between them based on cues in the story about whether the speaker is an advocate.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Princeton University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/princeton-university/) — University, Princeton, United States · 61 works · 36,471 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,086 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,889 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 211 works · [🎯 Decision Sciences](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/decision-sciences/) · 85 works · [🎯 General Decision Sciences](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/decision-sciences/general-decision-sciences/) · 2 works

## Cite

Cite as: Samuel A. Barnett, Thomas L. Griffiths and Robert D. Hawkins. 2021. A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect. arXiv:2112.03799.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@misc{barnett2021pragmatic,
  title = {{A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect}},
  author = {Samuel A. Barnett, Thomas L. Griffiths and Robert D. Hawkins},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2112.03799},
  eprint = {2112.03799},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2112.03799}
}
```

- [← previous Tracking Semantic Change in Cognate Sets for English and Romance Languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/uban-2021-tracking-semantic-change-cognate-sets/)
- [next → iCompass at Shared Task on Sarcasm and Sentiment Detection in Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/naski-2021-icompass-shared-task-sarcasm-sentiment/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2021](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2021/page/7/)

## References

70 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Acerbi, L., Dokka, K., Angelaki, D. E., & Ma, W. J. (2018). Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(7), e1006110. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006110)
2. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York, NY: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anderson%2C+N%2E+H%2E+%281981%29%2E+Foundations+of+information+integration+theory%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
3. Bagassi, M., & Macchi, L. (2006). Pragmatic approach to decision making under uncertainty: The case of the disjunction effect. Thinking & Reasoning, 12(3), 329–350. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780500375663)
4. Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4), 1–10. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0064)
5. Bhui, R., & Gershman, S. J. (2020). Paradoxical effects of persuasive messages. Decision, 7(4), 239–258. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000123)
6. Bohn, M., Tessler, M. H., Merrick, M., & Frank, M. C. (2021). How young children integrate information sources to infer the meaning of words. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 1046–1054. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01145-1)
7. Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H.-P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 495–519. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602321149858)
8. Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120(3), 322–330. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001)
9. Carroll, M., Shah, R., Ho, M. K., Griffiths, T., Seshia, S., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A. (2019). On the utility of learning about humans for human-AI coordination. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5175–5186). [↗](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1910.05789)
10. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Morrow. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cialdini%2C+R%2E+B%2E+%281993%29%2E+Influence%3A+The+psychology+of+persuasion%2E+New+York%3A+Morrow%2E)
11. Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Where do hypotheses come from? Cognitive Psychology, 96, 1–25. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.001)
12. Davis, J. H. (1984). Order in the courtroom. Psychology and Law, 251–265. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Davis%2C+J%2E+H%2E+%281984%29%2E+Order+in+the+courtroom%2E+Psychology+and+Law%2C+251%E2%80%93265%2E)
13. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541–546. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.55.4.541)
14. Falk, E., & Scholz, C. (2018). Persuasion, influence, and value: Perspectives from communication and social neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 329–356. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011821)
15. Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2011). When good evidence goes bad: The weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making. Cognition, 119(3), 459–467. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.013)
16. Franke, M., & Degen, J. (2016). Reasoning in reference games: Individual-vs. population-level probabilistic modeling. PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0154854. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154854)
17. Franke, M., Dulcinati, G., & Pouscoulous, N. (2020). Strategies of deception: Under-informativity, uninformativity, and lies—misleading with different kinds of implicature. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 583–607. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12456)
18. Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2016). Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35(1), 3–44. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2016-0002)
19. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. CRC Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gelman%2C+A%2E%2C+Carlin%2C+J%2E+B%2E%2C+Stern%2C+H%2E+S%2E%2C+Dunson%2C+D%2E+B%2E%2C+Vehtari%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Rubin%2C+D%2E+B%2E+%282013%29%2E+Bayesian+data+analysis%2E+CRC+Press%2E)
20. Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005)
21. Goodman, N. D., & Stuhlmüller, A. (2013). Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(1), 173–184. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12007)
22. Goodman, N. D., & Stuhlmüller, A. (2014). The Design and Implementation of Probabilistic Programming Languages. [http://dippl.org](http://dippl.org). (Accessed: 2020-1-7) [↗](http://dippl.org)
23. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, speech acts (Vol. 3). Academic Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003)
24. Gweon, H., Pelton, H., Konopka, J. A., & Schulz, L. E. (2014). Sins of omission: Children selectively explore when teachers are under-informative. Cognition, 132(3), 335–341. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gweon%2C+H%2E%2C+Pelton%2C+H%2E%2C+Konopka%2C+J%2E+A%2E%2C+%26+Schulz%2C+L%2E+E%2E+%282014%29%2E+Sins+of+omission%3A+Children+selectively+explore+when+teachers+are+under%2Dinformative%2E+Cognition%2C+132%283%29%2C+335%E2%80%93341%2E)
25. Harris, A., Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2013). James is polite and punctual (and useless): A Bayesian formalisation of faint praise. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3), 414–429. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.801367)
26. Harris, P., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 251–273. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710)
27. Hawthorne-Madell, D., & Goodman, N. D. (2019). Reasoning about social sources to learn from actions and outcomes. Decision, 6(1), 17–60. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hawthorne%2DMadell%2C+D%2E%2C+%26+Goodman%2C+N%2E+D%2E+%282019%29%2E+Reasoning+about+social+sources+to+learn+from+actions+and+outcomes%2E+Decision%2C+6%281%29%2C+17%E2%80%9360%2E)
28. Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Henrich%2C+J%2E+%282015%29%2E+The+secret+of+our+success%3A+How+culture+is+driving+human+evolution%2C+domesticating+our+species%2C+and+making+us+smarter%2E+Princeton+University+Press%2E)
29. Hilgard, S., Rosenfeld, N., Banaji, M. R., Cao, J., & Parkes, D. (2021). Learning representations by humans, for humans. In M. Meila & T. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 4227–4238). [↗](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4nvts)
30. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 1–55. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-j)
31. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hovland%2C+C%2E+I%2E%2C+Janis%2C+I%2E+L%2E%2C+%26+Kelley%2C+H%2E+H%2E+%281953%29%2E+Communication+and+persuasion%2E+Yale+University+Press%2E)
32. Hsu, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). Differential use of implicit negative evidence in generative and discriminative language learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 754–762). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hsu%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Griffiths%2C+T%2E+L%2E+%282009%29%2E+Differential+use+of+implicit+negative+evidence+in+generative+and+discriminative+language+learning%2E+In+Advances+in+Neural+Information+Processing+Systems+%28pp%2E+754%E2%80%93762)
33. Hsu, A., Horng, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Chater, N. (2017). When absence of evidence is evidence of absence: Rational inferences from absent data. Cognitive Science, 41, 1155–1167. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12356)
34. Irving, G., Christiano, P. F., & Amodei, D. (2018). AI safety via debate. ArXiv, abs/1805.00899. [↗](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00899)
35. Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2016). The naı̈ve utility calculus: Computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(8), 589–604. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jara%2DEttinger%2C+J%2E%2C+Gweon%2C+H%2E%2C+Schulz%2C+L%2E+E%2E%2C+%26+Tenenbaum%2C+J%2E+B%2E+%282016%29%2E+The+na%C4%B1%CC%88ve+utility+calculus%3A+Computational+principles+underlying+commonsense+psychology%2E+Trends+in+Cognitive+Sciences%2C+20%288%29%2C+58)
36. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Procedural debiasing. Acta Psychologica, 64(2), 167–185. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lopes%2C+L%2E+L%2E+%281987%29%2E+Procedural+debiasing%2E+Acta+Psychologica%2C+64%282%29%2C+167%E2%80%93185%2E)
37. Ma, F., Zeng, D., Xu, F., Compton, B. J., & Heyman, G. D. (2020). Delay of gratification as reputation management. Psychological Science, 31(9), 1174–1182. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939940)
38. Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M., & Newell, B. R. (2014). On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International, 240, 61–68. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.005)
39. McKenzie, C. R., & Nelson, J. D. (2003). What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 596–602. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196520)
40. McKenzie, C. R. M., Lee, S. M., & Chen, K. K. (2002). When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 1–18. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.400)
41. Meibauer, J. (2019). The oxford handbook of lying. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Meibauer%2C+J%2E+%282019%29%2E+The+oxford+handbook+of+lying%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
42. Mills, C. M., & Landrum, A. R. (2016). Learning who knows what: Children adjust their inquiry to gather information from others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 951. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00951)
43. Mosconi, G., & Macchi, L. (2001). The role of pragmatic rules in the conjunction fallacy. Mind & Society, 2(1), 31–57. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02512074)
44. Oey, L. A., Schachner, A., & Vul, E. (2019). Designing good deception: Recursive theory of mind in lying and lie detection. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 897–903). [↗](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5s4wc)
45. Oey, L. A., & Vul, E. (2021). Lies are crafted to the audience. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 791 - 797). [↗](https://doi.org/10.48448/hrgc-0m83)
46. O’Keefe, D. J. (2015). Persuasion: Theory and research. Sage Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=O%E2%80%99Keefe%2C+D%2E+J%2E+%282015%29%2E+Persuasion%3A+Theory+and+research%2E+Sage+Publications%2E)
47. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Westerman, C. Y. K., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 81–102. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x)
48. Perfors, A., Navarro, D., & Shafto, P. (2018). Stronger evidence isn’t always better: The role of social inference in evidence selection. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 864–869). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Perfors%2C+A%2E%2C+Navarro%2C+D%2E%2C+%26+Shafto%2C+P%2E+%282018%29%2E+Stronger+evidence+isn%E2%80%99t+always+better%3A+The+role+of+social+inference+in+evidence+selection%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+40th+Annual+Conference+of+the+Cognitive+)
49. Petty, R. E. (2018). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petty%2C+R%2E+E%2E+%282018%29%2E+Attitudes+and+persuasion%3A+Classic+and+contemporary+approaches%2E+Routledge%2E)
50. Politzer, G., & Macchi, L. (2000). Reasoning and pragmatics. Mind & Society, 1(1), 73–93. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02512230)
51. Poulin-Dubois, D., & Brosseau-Liard, P. (2016). The developmental origins of selective social learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 60–64. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415613962)
52. Ransom, K., Voorspoels, W., Perfors, A., & Navarro, D. (2017). A cognitive analysis of deception without lying. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 992–997). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ransom%2C+K%2E%2C+Voorspoels%2C+W%2E%2C+Perfors%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Navarro%2C+D%2E+%282017%29%2E+A+cognitive+analysis+of+deception+without+lying%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+39th+Annual+Conference+of+the+Cognitive+Science+Society+%28pp%2E+992%E2%80%939)
53. Saul, J. M. (2012). Lying, misleading, and what is said: An exploration in philosophy of language and in ethics. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Saul%2C+J%2E+M%2E+%282012%29%2E+Lying%2C+misleading%2C+and+what+is+said%3A+An+exploration+in+philosophy+of+language+and+in+ethics%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
54. Scontras, G., Tessler, M. H., & Franke, M. (2018). Probabilistic language understanding: An introduction to the rational speech act framework. Retrieved from [http://problang.org](http://problang.org). (Accessed: 2020-1-7) [↗](http://problang.org)
55. Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). A rational account of pedagogical reasoning: Teaching by, and learning from, examples. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 55–89. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.004)
56. Sikos, L., Venhuizen, N. J., Drenhaus, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2021). Speak before you listen: Pragmatic reasoning in multi-trial language games. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sikos%2C+L%2E%2C+Venhuizen%2C+N%2E+J%2E%2C+Drenhaus%2C+H%2E%2C+%26+Crocker%2C+M%2E+W%2E+%282021%29%2E+Speak+before+you+listen%3A+Pragmatic+reasoning+in+multi%2Dtrial+language+games%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+43rd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Cogniti)
57. Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Knowledge matters: How children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference. Psychological Review, 120(4), 779–797. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034191)
58. Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57(1), 31–95. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00666-m)
59. Tenenbaum, J. B. (1999). Bayesian modeling of human concept learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 59–68). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tenenbaum%2C+J%2E+B%2E+%281999%29%2E+Bayesian+modeling+of+human+concept+learning%2E+In+Advances+in+Neural+Information+Processing+Systems+%28pp%2E+59%E2%80%9368%29%2E)
60. Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4), 629–640. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01000061)
61. Tomasello, M. (2009). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tomasello%2C+M%2E+%282009%29%2E+The+cultural+origins+of+human+cognition%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
62. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1518–1552. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01197.x)
63. Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4)
64. Vélez, N., & Gweon, H. (2019). Integrating incomplete information with imperfect advice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 299–315. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12388)
65. Vignero, L. (2022). Updating on biased probabilistic testimony. Erkenntnis, 1–24. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-022-00545-7)
66. Watanabe, S. (2013). A widely applicable Bayesian information criterion. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14, 867–897. [↗](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1208.6338)
67. Whalen, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Buchsbaum, D. (2017). Sensitivity to shared information in social learning. Cognitive Science, 42(1), 168–187. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12485)
68. Wood, L. A., Kendal, R. L., & Flynn, E. G. (2013). Whom do children copy? Model-based biases in social learning. Developmental Review, 33(4), 341–356. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wood%2C+L%2E+A%2E%2C+Kendal%2C+R%2E+L%2E%2C+%26+Flynn%2C+E%2E+G%2E+%282013%29%2E+Whom+do+children+copy%3F+Model%2Dbased+biases+in+social+learning%2E+Developmental+Review%2C+33%284%29%2C+341%E2%80%93356%2E)
69. Yoon, E. J., MacDonald, K., Asaba, M., Gweon, H., & Frank, M. C. (2018). Balancing informational and social goals in active learning. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1218–1223). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yoon%2C+E%2E+J%2E%2C+MacDonald%2C+K%2E%2C+Asaba%2C+M%2E%2C+Gweon%2C+H%2E%2C+%26+Frank%2C+M%2E+C%2E+%282018%29%2E+Balancing+informational+and+social+goals+in+active+learning%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+40th+Annual+Conference+of+the+Cognitive+Scie)
70. Yoon, E. J., Tessler, M. H., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2020). Polite speech emerges from competing social goals. Open Mind, 4, 71–87. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00035)

*Updated 24 October 2026*