Rational Expectations and Kinematic Information in Coordination Games

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

ABSTRACT Successful coordination often requires integrating strategic reasoning with real-time observations of others’ actions, yet how humans resolve conflicts between these information sources remains unclear. This study aimed to fill this gap by examining how people coordinate in a strategic game when observing partial kinematic information from their partner’s actions. Participants played a HI-LO game with a virtual partner, choosing payoffs based on grasping movements toward invisible large and small targets. Hand movements were presented as schematic animations, with partners grasping targets linked to higher or lower payoffs across two configurations. Participants relied exclusively on kinematic cues from hand shape changes in maximum grip aperture to infer their partner’s choices. There were two main findings. While participants preferred higher payoffs consistent with rational game-theoretic expectations, reliable kinematic cues overrode these expectations. When early grip aperture changes indicated the partner was reaching for a large target associated with a lower payoff, participants abandoned their default preference for higher payoffs. They chose the lower option instead, achieving a high coordination success rate. These findings demonstrate that people prioritize kinematic cues about others’ choices over theoretical assumptions about rational behavior when coordinating. This suggests that movement-based inferences about others’ actions in natural social interactions may be weighted more heavily than strategic reasoning when the two sources of information conflict.

Authors 8

1. Martina Fanghella

   University of Milan

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Milan;

   Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, 01 Milano, Italy

   Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, 2022 Milano, Italy

2. Camilla F. Colombo Aachen HumTech

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Aachen University;

   HumTech, Aachen University

3. Maria Teresa Pascarelli

   University of Milan

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Milan;

   Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, 01 Milano, Italy

   Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, 2022 Milano, Italy

4. Guido Barchiesi

   University of Milan

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Milan;

   Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, 01 Milano, Italy

   Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, 2022 Milano, Italy

5. Marco Rabuffetti

   Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation

   Affiliation as printed

   IRCCS, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi

   IRCCS, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 2018 Milan, Italy

6. Maurizio Ferrarin

   Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation

   Affiliation as printed

   IRCCS, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi

   IRCCS, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 2018 Milan, Italy

7. Francesco Guala

   University of Milan

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Milan;

   Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, 01 Milano, Italy

   Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, 2022 Milano, Italy

8. Corrado Sinigaglia corresponding

   University of Milan

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Milan;

   Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, 01 Milano, Italy

   Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, 2022 Milano, Italy