The division of labor in communication: Speakers help listeners account for asymmetries in visual perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent debates over adults' theory of mind use have been fueled by surprising failures of perspective-taking in communication, suggesting that perspective-taking can be relatively effortful. How, then, should speakers and listeners allocate their resources to achieve successful communication? We begin with the observation that this shared goal induces a natural division of labor: the resources one agent chooses to allocate toward perspective-taking should depend on their expectations about the other's allocation. We formalize this idea in a resource-rational model augmenting recent probabilistic weighting accounts with a mechanism for (costly) control over the degree of perspective-taking. In a series of simulations, we first derive an intermediate degree of perspective weighting as an optimal tradeoff between expected costs and benefits of perspective-taking. We then present two behavioral experiments testing novel predictions of our model. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the presence or absence of occlusions in a director-matcher task and found that speakers spontaneously produced more informative descriptions to account for "known unknowns" in their partner's private view. In Experiment 2, we compared the scripted utterances used by confederates in prior work with those produced in interactions with unscripted directors. We found that confederates were systematically less informative than listeners would initially expect given the presence of occlusions, but listeners used violations to adaptively make fewer errors over time. Taken together, our work suggests that people are not simply "mindblind"; they use contextually appropriate expectations to navigate the division of labor with their partner. We discuss how a resource rational framework may provide a more deeply explanatory foundation for understanding flexible perspective-taking under processing constraints.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2024Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? The Misleading Success of Simulating Social Interactions With LLMscited by 59
- 2021Cognitive science as a source of forward and inverse models of human decisions for robotics and controlcited by 22
- 2021Maintaining Common Ground in Dynamic Environmentscited by 9
- 2024Towards a Fully Interpretable and More Scalable RSA Model for Metaphor Understandingcited by 2
- 2025Planning Ahead with RSA: Efficient Signalling in Dynamic Environments by Projecting User Awareness across Future Timestepscited by 0
- 2026Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialoguescited by 0
- 2026Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues4 May 2026
- 2025Planning Ahead with RSA: Efficient Signalling in Dynamic Environments by Projecting User Awareness across Future Timesteps27 Oct 2025
- 2024Towards a Fully Interpretable and More Scalable RSA Model for Metaphor Understanding3 Apr 2024
- 2024Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? The Misleading Success of Simulating Social Interactions With LLMs8 Mar 2024
- 2021Cognitive science as a source of forward and inverse models of human decisions for robotics and control1 Sep 2021
- 2021Maintaining Common Ground in Dynamic Environments29 May 2021