Coricelli and Nagel (2009) were interested identifying the neural mechanisms associated with the application of the theory of mind, or mentalizing, where individuals consider the thinking of others to guide their reasoning. Specifically, the researchers investigated the question: Is there a difference in brain activity between low-level versus high-level reasoners?
The alternatives for Coricelli and Nagel’s (2009) questions are as follows:
(1) It could be that there is a difference in brain activity, either (i) in location or (ii) level of activation, between the low-level and high-level reasoners, or
(2) It could be that there is no difference in brain activity for low-level and high-level reasoners.
If there is a difference in brain activity …show more content…
Since they identified a difference in brain activity between the low-level versus high-level reasoners, alternative (2) is eliminated. Interestingly, there was no unique region activated by one group, which eliminates alternative (1i). Therefore, the results support alternative (1ii) because a difference in activation was observed in a shared region.
Coricelli and Nagel’s (2009) paper provided a method, the beauty contest, for investigating an individual’s ability of strategic reasoning and mentalizing. While they only use it to examine heterogeneity in strategic behavior of ordinary people, the beauty contest may also serve as a tool to understand the cognitive abilities of people with mental disorders. Specifically, Pantelis and Kennedy (2017) studied how people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) performs on the beauty contest. They were interested in the question: Is ASD systematically related to the depth of strategic reasoning and mentalizing?
There are two alternatives to their question:
(1) It could be that ASD does not affect the individual’s ability to strategically reason and mentalize, …show more content…
Rather than claiming the ASD group have no impairment of strategic reasoning and mentalizing, it is also possible that the beauty contest does not require a true demonstration of mentalization. Specifically, individuals have been shown to perform well in similar games by applying learned behavior in an input-output style, mapping observable situations to predicted outcomes (Heyes, 2014). If this is the case, then a logical explanation of Pantelis and Kennedy’s results can be reached that also fits the definition of ASD. Subsequently, Corcelli and Nagel’s conclusion of the mPFC’s role becomes questionable: the mPFC could be involved in applying learned behavior rules rather than
The alternatives for Coricelli and Nagel’s (2009) questions are as follows:
(1) It could be that there is a difference in brain activity, either (i) in location or (ii) level of activation, between the low-level and high-level reasoners, or
(2) It could be that there is no difference in brain activity for low-level and high-level reasoners.
If there is a difference in brain activity …show more content…
Since they identified a difference in brain activity between the low-level versus high-level reasoners, alternative (2) is eliminated. Interestingly, there was no unique region activated by one group, which eliminates alternative (1i). Therefore, the results support alternative (1ii) because a difference in activation was observed in a shared region.
Coricelli and Nagel’s (2009) paper provided a method, the beauty contest, for investigating an individual’s ability of strategic reasoning and mentalizing. While they only use it to examine heterogeneity in strategic behavior of ordinary people, the beauty contest may also serve as a tool to understand the cognitive abilities of people with mental disorders. Specifically, Pantelis and Kennedy (2017) studied how people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) performs on the beauty contest. They were interested in the question: Is ASD systematically related to the depth of strategic reasoning and mentalizing?
There are two alternatives to their question:
(1) It could be that ASD does not affect the individual’s ability to strategically reason and mentalize, …show more content…
Rather than claiming the ASD group have no impairment of strategic reasoning and mentalizing, it is also possible that the beauty contest does not require a true demonstration of mentalization. Specifically, individuals have been shown to perform well in similar games by applying learned behavior in an input-output style, mapping observable situations to predicted outcomes (Heyes, 2014). If this is the case, then a logical explanation of Pantelis and Kennedy’s results can be reached that also fits the definition of ASD. Subsequently, Corcelli and Nagel’s conclusion of the mPFC’s role becomes questionable: the mPFC could be involved in applying learned behavior rules rather than