Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026Thank you to my amazing collaborator and advisor @rdhawkins.bsky.social! Come visit our poster during session 1 (P1-E-36) On Thursday July 23 14:45-16:00 to come chat and learn more! 010
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026We look forward to investigating how expectations are formed in groups, and the importance of common ground in shaping that process. For example, have you ever worked in a group where everyone is collaborating well initially, but after one person acts selfishly, the whole trust system collapses? 100
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026Dyads receiving selfish advice tended to choose asymmetric payoff patterns more than dyads receiving cooperative advice! So the content of advice only changed their coordination behavior when they knew it was in common ground. 100
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026Over time, participant dyads converged on stable coordination strategies. But some strategies were more fair than others: Dyads parking in A and B (stable orange) received the same bonus, but dyads parking in C and D (stable purple) received asymmetric bonuses. 100
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026Before the game, participants received advice in a 2×2 design manipulating the content of the advice (selfishly maximizing your own score vs. cooperatively favoring the partner) and whether it is in common ground (whether they were told their partner received the same advice or not). 100
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026We investigated how common ground about advice affects coordination by asking pairs of participants to play the 13-round car parking game from Dhara Yu & @wdt.bsky.social. They receive a bonus if they park in the same color, but score 0 if they choose the same spot. 100
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 20/07/2026Telling two people to be selfish barely changes their behavior, unless they both know they got the same message! Our #CogSci2026 paper reveals that these group expectations only matter when we all know that we share the same expectations. 1194
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 23/07/2025That’s interesting!🤔 We also found that the interpretation of modifiers depends on whether it modifies a positive or negative predicate. It would be interesting to study in more detail how context affects the interpretation of the modifier in different dialects. 010
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 23/07/2025And yes, all participants said that English is their primary language 000
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 23/07/2025Yes, I also think there would be a big difference with ESL speakers and native speakers, because context in which you encounter the word in everyday life seems to influence your understanding of the word significantly. 010
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025This work provides the first quantitative evidence that cross-cultural variation in interpretation emerges from an interplay of semantic and pragmatic factors. With @rdhawkins.bsky.social, Matthias Hofer & Max Siegel Poster presentation: July 31 at #CogSci2025 📄 Full paper: arxiv.org/abs/2506.15623arxiv.orgMinding the Politeness Gap in Cross-cultural CommunicationMisunderstandings in cross-cultural communication often arise from subtle differences in interpretation, but it is unclear whether these differences arise from the literal meanings assigned to words o... 051
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025These findings have practical implications for cross-cultural communication. When cultural groups assign different meanings AND apply different pragmatic reasoning to the same words, misunderstandings may become more likely. 160
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025On the first point, our results are consistent with the observation that Americans typically interpret "quite" more as an amplifier (quite good = ⬆️ good), while British speakers often read it as a downtoner (quite good = 🤷 moderately good). 460
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025Our model comparisons showed that British and American speakers: (1) Assign different literal meanings to some modifiers (2) Apply different weights to informativity vs. social utility (3) Reason differently about the "costs" of adding modifiers 130
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025Our results suggest both factors play an important role. We extended a Rational Speech Act model of polite speech to explicitly model cross-cultural variation. 130
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025We conducted three experiments examining how people interpret various modified statements like "I'm very concerned" across a range of scenarios. The series of experiments aimed to distinguish social factors (e.g. politeness) from semantic factors (e.g. modifying the strength of the statement). 140
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025The key question: Do cross-cultural differences stem from words having different literal meanings across cultures, or from different pragmatic reasoning about politeness and communication norms? 160
Yuka Machino @ymacci.bsky.social · 06/07/2025🎤 "Your #CogSci presentation was quite good this year." How flattered or offended will you be? The answer may depend on whether you speak British or American English 🇺🇸🇬🇧. Our new #CogSci2025 paper reveals systematic differences in how different cultures interpret the same words. 47316
