Sophie Bridgers , Peng Qian , Kiera Parece , Maya Taliaferro , Laura Schulz , Tomer D. Ullman
{"title":"Loopholes: A window into value alignment and the communication of meaning","authors":"Sophie Bridgers , Peng Qian , Kiera Parece , Maya Taliaferro , Laura Schulz , Tomer D. Ullman","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Intentional misunderstandings take advantage of the ambiguity of language to do what someone said, instead of what they actually wanted. These purposeful misconstruals or <em>loopholes</em> are a familiar facet of fable, law, and everyday life. Engaging with loopholes requires a nuanced understanding of goals (your own and those of others), ambiguity, and social alignment. As such, loopholes provide a unique window into the normal operations of cooperation and communication. Despite their pervasiveness and utility in social interaction, research on loophole behavior is scarce. Here, we combine a theoretical analysis with empirical data to give a framework of loophole behavior. We first establish that loopholes are widespread, and exploited most often in equal or subordinate relationships (Study 1). We show that people reliably distinguish loophole behavior from both compliance and non-compliance (Study 2), and that people predict that others are most likely to exploit loopholes when their goals are in conflict with their social partner’s and there is a cost for non-compliance (Study 3). We discuss these findings in light of other computational frameworks for communication and joint-planning, as well as discuss how loophole behavior might develop and the implications of this work for human–machine alignment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"261 ","pages":"Article 106131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772500071X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Intentional misunderstandings take advantage of the ambiguity of language to do what someone said, instead of what they actually wanted. These purposeful misconstruals or loopholes are a familiar facet of fable, law, and everyday life. Engaging with loopholes requires a nuanced understanding of goals (your own and those of others), ambiguity, and social alignment. As such, loopholes provide a unique window into the normal operations of cooperation and communication. Despite their pervasiveness and utility in social interaction, research on loophole behavior is scarce. Here, we combine a theoretical analysis with empirical data to give a framework of loophole behavior. We first establish that loopholes are widespread, and exploited most often in equal or subordinate relationships (Study 1). We show that people reliably distinguish loophole behavior from both compliance and non-compliance (Study 2), and that people predict that others are most likely to exploit loopholes when their goals are in conflict with their social partner’s and there is a cost for non-compliance (Study 3). We discuss these findings in light of other computational frameworks for communication and joint-planning, as well as discuss how loophole behavior might develop and the implications of this work for human–machine alignment.
期刊介绍:
Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.