research_old | julian-de-freitas

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Personal identity, self-projection, ownership, and psychological essentialism

Representations of and beliefs about the concept of “a self” vary across cultures, perspectives (first vs. third), and individuals. Yet my collaborators and I have found evidence suggesting that people exhibit a robust, invariant tendency to believe that deep inside every individual there is a “good true self” calling them to behave in a morally virtuous manner. We propose that this belief arises from a general cognitive tendency known as psychological essentialism.

De Freitas & Alvarez (under review). Personal identity, self-projection, and psychological essentialism. PsyArXiv.
De Freitas, J., Cikara, M., Grossmann, I., & Schlegel, R. (2017). Origins of the belief in morally good true selves. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 634–636. **Review**
De Freitas, J., & Cikara, M, Grossmann, I., & Schlegel, R. (2018). Moral goodness is the essence of personal identity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 739–740. [Original letter by Starmans & Bloom.] **Review**
De Freitas, J., & Cikara, M. (2018). Deep down my enemy is good: Thinking about the true self reduces intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 307–316 .
De Freitas, J., Sarkissian, H., Newman, G. E., Grossman, I., De Brigard, F., Luco, A., & Knobe, J. (2018). Consistent belief in a good true self in misanthropes and three interdependent cultures. Cognitive Science, 42, 134–160. [supp. materials].
De Freitas, J., Tobia, K., Newman, J. E., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normative judgments and individual essence. Cognitive Science, 1551–6709.
Newman, J. E., De Freitas, J., and Knobe, J. (2015). Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 96–125.
DeScioli, P., Karpoff, R., & De Freitas, J. (2017). Ownership dilemmas: The case of finders versus landowners. Cognitive Science, 41(S3), 502–522.

Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in social life

My collaborators and I have investigated how representations of knowledge -- including shared knowledge (e.g., you know X, I know that you know X), and common knowledge (you know X, I know that you know X, you know that I know that you know X, ad infinitum) -- affect diverse social phenomena such as the bystander effect and perceptions of charitability. We propose that -- rather than being represented as an explicit, multiply nested proposition -- common knowledge may be a distinctive cognitive state, corresponding to the sense that something is public or "out there".

De Freitas, J., Thomas, K. A., DeScioli, P., & Pinker, S. (2019) Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. **Review**
De Freitas, J.*, Thomas, K. A.*, DeScioli, P., & Pinker, S. (2016) Recursive mentalizing and common knowledge in the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(5), 621–629.
De Freitas, J., DeScioli, P., Thomas, K. A., & Pinker, S. (2018). Maimonides' Ladder: States of mutual knowledge and the perception of charitability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Object-based tracking, intrinsic curiosity, and animate attention

Humans naturally pay attention to other animate agents in their environment, a prosocial behavior that has been documented as early as a few weeks. What internal mechanisms give rise to this behavior? A standard hypothesis is that the human brain has a built-in module that specifically detects animacy from visual input. Yet we find evidence that animate attention naturally arises from a more general process of curiosity driven learning.

De Freitas, J., Liverence, B., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). Attentional rhythm: A temporal analogue of object-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 71–76.
De Freitas, J., Myers, N. E., & Nobre, A. C. (2016). Tracking the changing feature of a moving object. Journal of Vision, 16(3), 1–21.
Kim, K. H., Haber, N. J., De Freitas, J., & Yamins, D. L. K. Learning to attend with progress-based intrinsic curiosity. In prep.

Moral judgment, its perceptual underpinnings, and moral machines

How does moral judgment work, and what can we learn by reverse-engineering it? We have helped uncover three principles of moral psychology: (1) Moral judgments are automatically affected by high-level visual inferences about causality; (2) moral judgments are not only sensitive to the mental states of agents (aka the 'intentional stance'), but also the objective state of the world (aka the 'teleological stance' ); and (3) moral intuitions, in turn, affect various concepts that would appear to have nothing to do with morality -- such as intuitions about whether someone is happy, or caused an outcome.

De Freitas, J., & Alvarez, G. A. (2018). Your visual system provides all the information you need to make moral judgments about generic visual events. Cognition, 178, 133–146.
De Freitas, J., Anthony, S. E., & Alvarez, G. A. Doubting driverless dilemmas. PsyArXiv.
Phillips, J., De Freitas, J., Mott, C., Gruber, J. & Knobe, J. (2017). True happiness: The role of morality in the concept of happiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(2),165–181.
De Freitas, J.*, & Johnson, S.G.B*. (2018). Optimality bias in moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 149–163. [supp. materials]
De Freitas, J., DeScioli, P., Nemirow, J., Massenkoff, M., & Pinker, S. (2017). Kill or die: Moral judgment alters linguistic coding of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(8), 1173–1182. [supp. materials]