Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T15:42:16.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational models of social cognition should incorporate social relationships as core primitives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Alicia M. Chen Open the ORCID record for Alicia M. Chen [Opens in a new window] ,
Kartik Chandra Open the ORCID record for Kartik Chandra [Opens in a new window]  and
Rebecca Saxe Open the ORCID record for Rebecca Saxe [Opens in a new window]
Alicia M. Chen*
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA aliciach@mit.edu kach@mit.edu saxe@mit.edu
Kartik Chandra
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA aliciach@mit.edu kach@mit.edu saxe@mit.edu
Rebecca Saxe
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA aliciach@mit.edu kach@mit.edu saxe@mit.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relational primitives can facilitate rapid inductive generalization beyond individual mental-state reasoning. Computational models of social cognition should incorporate social relationships as core primitives, enabling richer explanations for how minimal social observations lead to flexible, efficient, and culturally adaptive social predictions.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e29
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohl, V. (2015). We read minds to shape relationships. Philosophical Psychology, 28(5), 674–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.893607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, K., Chen, T., Tenenbaum, J., & Ragan-Kelley, J. (2025). A Domain-Specific Probabilistic Programming Language for Reasoning About Reasoning (or: A memo on memo). OSF. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pt863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. M., & Saxe, R. (2023). People have systematic expectations linking social relationships to patterns of reciprocal altruism. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 45(45), 2766–2772. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3c40n20w Google Scholar
Gershman, S. J., & Blei, D. M. (2012). A tutorial on Bayesian nonparametric models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2011.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, M. K., Saxe, R., & Cushman, F. (2022). Planning with theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(11), 959–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.08.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jara-Ettinger, J., & Dunham, Y. (2024). The Institutional Stance. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pefsx CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2016). The naïve utility calculus: Computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(8), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiley Hamlin, J., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., Goodman, N., & Baker, C. (2013). The mentalistic basis of core social cognition: Experiments in preverbal infants and a computational model. Developmental Science, 16(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12017 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. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 38, 1679–1684. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/29z7r7md Google Scholar
Pietraszewski, D. (2022). 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. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, L. J. (2022). Adopted utility calculus: Origins of a concept of social affiliation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1215–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211048487 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, A. J., Woo, B., Nettle, D., Spelke, E., & Saxe, R. (2022). Early concepts of intimacy: Young humans use saliva sharing to infer close relationships. Science, 375(6578), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh1054 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, T., Baker, C., Macindoe, O., Evans, O., Goodman, N., & Tenenbaum, J. (2009). Help or Hinder: Bayesian Models of Social Goal Inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 22. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2009/hash/52292e0c763fd027c6eba6b8f494d2eb-Abstract.html Google Scholar