Psychology/game theory term related to strategy

Factual Questions
1

I’ve searched high and low, but I can’t find what this concept is called (if anything, if it’s not, I got dibs on naming it). The reason I need to know is because I seem to be unable to find resources on the subject, at least the kind I am expecting. The term is probably from psychology or sociology but a term in game theory could give me a starting point. At least give me something to google because I just went through about 80 Wikipedia pages in an endless tree of “See also”, and didn’t see anything remotely close.

Ok, I will try to define it in terms of the closest thing I found. Specifically impression management

rephrasing the first paragraph what I’m looking for is

So it’s something that is a more general superset that would include things like “manipulation” and “impression management”, but with a specific focus on the cognitive or emotional process by which a person decides what the expected reactions would be in different cases.

Example 1:
Joe decides that it would be beneficial to him if his co-worker Hank offered Joe a ride home without being asked. Joe thereby begins to act in a way that he believes has a higher likelihood of causing Hank to offer him a ride without being asked. Joe does not necessarily make any assumptions about Hank’s rationality, but he knows him well enough to formulate a hypothesis on how he should act and then act upon it.

Example 2:
Ellen has problems with getting her 8 year old daughter Sue to go to bed at the proper time. Ellen, based on feelings and her knowledge of Sue, herself, and her formal education in Criminal Justice, decides that using reverse psychology would be the best approach. Therefore she tells Sue that she is allowed to stay up as late as possible.

Example 3:
[Let’s make an assumption that there exists a study that showed women tend to dress in a more revealing manner when they are ovulating]. This is a hypothesis using the “<my term> approach” or somesuch to explain the results of the study:
Suppose women are predisposed or “have a subconscious drive” to attract male attention when they are ovulating. They consciously or subconsciously create an expectation that dressing in a certain manner would attract male attention. Even though they are not aware they are ovulating on a rational level, their decisions are influenced by their biological drive based on this behavioral expectation.
I am not expecting anything 100% fitting. However, the more related terms I can accumulate the more interesting stuff I get to look up and read, so if you think it might fit even partially, I’d appreciate it as well.

Thank you.

(Mods: I am hoping this is a GQ quality post and not IMHO, even though it’s a bit wordy and is phrased in a profoundly stupid way. If you disagree, please move it)

2

I’ve got no term to offer up, but if you are looking for scenarios and the language surrounding them, such manipulations are a critical part of a well-rounded poker player’s game. Often the skill lies in recognizing the impressions others already have of you and acting accordingly, but one also tries to manipulate one’s image to one’s favor whenever possible. Keywords: “(table) image”, “meta game”.

One also attempts to control opponent actions in specific situations by all sorts of conscious means (looking tough, looking disinterested, looking scared, spilling chips, getting a soda.) When players give off these signals unconsciously, an alert player can sometimes pick up on it and take advantage. Keyword: “tells”. When a player knows his opponent (and himself) well enough to use the signals profitably, these signals are sometimes called “reverse tells”.

Is there a specific scenario you have in mind? For the general case, it seems like “manipulation” is a good fit, but you seem to be after something a bit… different.

3

Well, manipulation is a subset of what I want, but it also generally refers to actions without consideration for the cognitive process that resulted in those actions. I see something fundamentally unifying between, for example

A) Doing somebody a favor, and while being primary motivated by altruism, considering potential reactions and their effect on you, and keeping these considerations in mind when choosing how the favor is done, however having no expectations and being satisfied with any outcome

and

B) Telling somebody something objectively innocent but crafted in a way to touch upon that individual’s insecurities to indirectly motivate them to do something for your benefit or amusement.

Both are essentially decision making that is influenced by one or more hypotheses of the other individual’s reactions. However, while B is clearly manipulation by most definitions, A is clearly not.

Just to clarify I am looking for a descriptive* psychological model or approach (preferably backed by real research) that deals with

a) how different people model hypothetical behavior of others in response to actions on their part

and

b) how people integrate those hypothetical behavior models into their own decision making.
(* I’ve found a whole bunch of prescriptive models on how to brainwash people or be a more effective leader, etc. , and that’s not what I’m after)

4

The most inclusive term specific to game theory is definitely “metagame.” Bluffing and table image are all aspects of the metagame of poker. Any prediction of an opponent’s probable throw in Rock,Paper,Scissors is metagaming. Any manipulation of an opponent to influence his throw is metagaming. For instance, saying, “I’m going to throw rock” will give the manipulator a starting point if he knows the level of deception the opponent typically employs.

There are many books on the psychology of games and behavioral game theory. Are you looking for this info for a certain reason? I might be able to point you in a more specific direction.

5

I’ll approach this from my area of expertise: military war games, both formal (my day job) and informal (real-time strategy PC gaming). Whenever you think about an enemy’s response to your actions, there is a certain amount of empathy required. Someone must step back and ask, “If I had the adversary’s resources and priorities, how would I apply them in the situation that I have created?” In formal war games, you almost always get a human to be the “red team” or adversary, and they learn as much as they can about the enemy and then strive to win in an authentic manner. If you’re looking for a descriptive model of good red teaming, check out PARAMETERS, the U.S. Army War College academic journal. This article probably cites several sources that could be useful. If anyone has written a model for (a), it’s probably appeared there.

(B) is harder. Predicting what the red team will do is still the blue team’s job, and in general this is the job of your intelligence staff; they collect hundreds of observations of enemy behavior and learn how the enemy reacts in certain situations. I’ve met intelligence analysts who learn the language and culture of the adversary to cultivate the empathy required for this prediction, and they can tell you what the enemy will do and why. Changing their reactions is left to PSYOPS, and those folks should have a strong understanding of the latter half of the equation. They come up with exactly the right culturally-tinted message to elicit a desired response. It will be much harder to find open literature about these techniques, and it’s all very Secret Squirrel stuff. A search of PARAMETERS on “psyops” may yield some interesting nuggets, though.

6

I think groman’s looking for a much more general term (one I now think doesn’t exist, so have a go!) that would include something like:

© My mother’s coming to visit, so I clean up the apartment.

I don’t have any specific expectations from the action, but perhaps I feel like cleaning my apartment will tend to make my mother act in ways I would prefer. It’s a quite conscious (in this case) “impression management” act, but I don’t think “metagame” is general enough to capture the situation, and even manipulation seems wrong (as it carries a certain connotation.)

(groman should correct me if this isn’t in line with his OP.)

7

There’s a whole bunch of terms related to it arising from different fields. In logic, it’s called Epistemic Logic, in psychology, it’s called Theory of Mind, in AI, it’s called a Frame. I think I’ve seen Epistemic logic pop up most frequently in game theory.

8

Would Flow be the term you are thinking of?