Abstract
The ability to understand the behaviour of other people in intentional terms has been traditionally explained by resorting to inferential mechanisms that would allow individuals to access the internal mental states of others. In recent years, the second-person perspective has established itself as a theoretical alternative to traditional models. It argues that intentional understanding is an embodied, natural, and immediate process that occurs in situations such as face-to-face early dyadic interactions between adults and infants. In this article, we argue that the way in which the second-person perspective regards body and object is problematic. Based on psychological evidence that demonstrates the constitutive role of the body and objects for cognitive development, we propose the foundations of an ecological-enactive, semiotic and pragmatic model of intentional understanding. We argue that intentional understanding should be conceived as the skilful coordination of behaviours that subjects come to enact in interactive settings, following the dynamics of bodily and material practices that have acquired normative force over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an empirical investigation on anticipatory adjustments to being picked up carried out from the SPP, see Reddy et al. (2013).
Alessandroni and Rodríguez (2017) addressed how this problem affects psychological explanations seeking to explain the emergence of the cultural sphere (i.e., social conventions) from the natural sphere (i.e., the organic dimension of the body).
When we speak about objects, we refer to artefacts, namely material entities constructed to fulfil a culturally determined canonical purpose (Alessandroni & Rodríguez, 2020) commonly used with the hands (e.g., a spoon) (see also Knappett, 2010). In this sense, we differ with how the SPP defines objects. For instance, Gomila (2001) refers to the “objects” of intentional states in a broad and undifferentiated way. Here, the word “object” can designate artefacts, but also relationships, events (Gomila, 2002, p. 133–134) and animals (e.g., spiders) (Pérez, 2018, p. 64). Also important to note is that our proposal refers exclusively to triadic interactions including artefacts (i.e., adult-artefact-child). This does not deny the importance of triadic interactions involving three subjects (e.g., adult-adult-child) (see Brown et al., 2022; Fivaz-Depeursinge et al., 2010; McHale et al., 2008) that might be more prevalent in certain cultural settings.
Adults’ child-rearing strategies vary significantly in different socio-cultural contexts (e.g., Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1983; Molitor & Hsu, 2010; Valsiner, 2000/2005; Zayas & Solari, 1994) depending on divergent cultural norms and expectations about how children should behave (see Paugh, 2012). By way of example, Chen et al. (1998) reported differences in the adaptational meaning of behavioural inhibition in a study with Chinese and Canadian toddlers. Specifically, Chinese two-year-olds were found to be significantly more inhibited than their Canadian counterparts. Moreover, in the Chinese sample, child inhibition “was associated positively with acceptance and encouragement of achievement and negatively with rejection and punishment orientation” (p. 683), just the opposite of what was found in the Canadian sample. Relatedly, Karasik et al. (2018) described the gahvora cradling practice in Tajikistan (Central Asia), in which caregivers swaddle and bound infants’ arms, legs, and torsos to the cradle bed. Not only does the study describe in detail this practice, but it also reports the impressions of the researchers, who defined the intense vigour with which caregivers commonly rocked the gahvora as “‘rough’ to our Western eye” (Karasik et al., 2018, p. 14). The way of holding newborns also varies between cultures. Whereas Western caregivers “hold newborns like a fragile carton of eggs” (Adolph et al., 2018, p. 703), caregivers in Africa, India, and the Caribbean involve infants in formal massage, stretching and exercise practices to facilitate their motor development (see Adolph & Robinson, 2015). While a comparison of culturally specific parenting practices is beyond the scope of this paper, it is crucial to keep in mind that the communicative strategies that adults employ are not identical in different cultural settings (for a discussion, see Henrich et al., 2010).
Gallagher and Ransom (2016) assert, from philosophy, that mental states are performative ways of interacting with others and with objects instead of preformed abstract entities that guide behaviours.
For other significant contributions to the field of 5E cognition see, for example, Chemero (2009), Durt et al. (2017), Gallagher, (2020a, 2020b), Heras-Escribano (2021), Hutto and Myin (2013), Kiverstein and Rietveld (2018), Newen et al. (2018), Malafouris (2021a, 2021b), and Segundo-Ortin and Heras-Escribano (2021).
References
Adolph, K. E., & Robinson, S. R. (2015). Motor development. In R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.) & L. Liben & U. Muller (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 2: Cognitive processes (7th ed.) (pp. 114–157). Wiley
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An ecological approach to learning in (not and) development. Human Development, 63(3–4), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503823
Adolph, K. E., Hoch, J. E., & Cole, W. G. (2018). Development (of walking): 15 suggestions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(8), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.010
Alessandroni, N. (2017). Development of metaphorical thought before language: The pragmatic construction of metaphors in action. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(4), 618–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9373-3
Alessandroni, N. (2018). Varieties of embodiment in cognitive science. Theory & Psychology, 28(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317745589
Alessandroni, N. (2021a). La semiotización cultural del cuerpo: Una base de la atribución enactiva de estados mentales. In N. Alessandroni, & M. C. Piro (Eds.), Cuerpo, época y presentaciones sintomáticas actuales (pp. 115–136). EDULP - Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Alessandroni, N. (2021b). Object concepts and their functional core: Material engagement and canonical uses of objects in early childhood education. Human Arenas, 4, 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00119-5
Alessandroni, N. (2021c). The road to conventional tool use: Developmental changes in children’s material engagement with artefacts in nursery school. Manuscript submitted for publication
Alessandroni, N., & Rodríguez, C. (2017). Is «container» a natural and embodied image schema? A developmental, pragmatic, and cultural proposal. Human Development, 60(4), 144–178. https://doi.org/10.1159/000478841
Alessandroni, N., & Rodríguez, C. (2019). On perception as the basis for object concepts: A critical analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(2-3), 321–356. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19027.ale
Alessandroni, N., & Rodríguez, C. (2020). The development of categorisation and conceptual thinking in early childhood: Methods and limitations. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 33, article 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00154-9
Alessandroni, N., Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M. J. (2020). Musical dynamics in early triadic interactions: A case study. Psychological Research, 84, 1555–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01168-4
Aston, A. (2020). How the Cycladic Islanders found their marbles: Material engagement, social cognition and the emergence of Keros. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 30(4), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977432000013X
Aston, A. (2021). You can’t perform the same ritual twice: Minds, materials, automobiles, and the emergence of form. World Archaeology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.1972831
Baber, C., Chemero, T., & Hall, J. (2019). What the jeweller’s hand tells the jeweller’s brain: Tool use, creativity and embodied cognition. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0292-0
Barona, A. M. (2021). The archaeology of the social brain revisited: Rethinking mind and material culture from a material engagement perspective. Adaptive Behavior, 29(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712320941945
Barone, P., & Gomila, A. (2021). Infants’ performance in the indirect false belief tasks: A second-person interpretation. WIREs Cognitive Science, 12(3), e1551. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1551
Basilio, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2017). How toddlers think with their hands: Social and private gestures as evidence of cognitive self-regulation in guided play with objects. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1971–1986. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1202944
Booth, K. J. (2016). The meaning of the social body: Bringing George Herbert Mead to Mark Johnson’s theory of embodied mind. William James Studies, 12(1), 1–18
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press
Brandone, A. C., Stout, W., & Moty, K. (2020). Triadic interactions support infants’ emerging understanding of intentional actions. Developmental Science, 23(2), e12880. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12880
Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Neff, C., Shigeto, A., Aytuglu, A., & Thomas, C. R. (2022). Infant attachment configurations with mothers and fathers: Implications for triadic interaction quality and children’s parental preferences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.09.004
Cárdenas, K., Moreno-Núñez, A., & Miranda-Zapata, E. (2020). Shared book-reading in early childhood education: Teachers’ mediation in children’s communicative development. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, article 2030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02030
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. The MIT Press
Chen, X., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H., Cen, G., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). Child-rearing attitudes and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.677
Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (1994). Doing without representing? Synthese, 101(3), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063896
Costall, A. (2013). Things that help make us what we are. In G. Sammut, P. Daanen, & F. M. Moghaddam (Eds.), Understanding the self and others (pp. 66–76). Routledge
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
Di Paolo, E. (2016). Participatory object perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(5-6), 228–258
Dimitrova, N. (2013). It takes more than mean-end differentiation to intentionally communicate in infancy. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 3, 81–90
Dimitrova, N. (2020). Les connaissances communes sur l’usage des objets aident les parents à interpréter la fonction du regard social du nourrisson. Revue [petite] enfance, 133, 94–106
Dimitrova, N., & Moro, C. (2013). Common ground on object use associates with caregivers’ gesturese. Infant Behavior and Development, 36(4), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.06.006
Dimitrova, N., Moro, C., & Mohr, C. (2015). Caregivers interpret infants’ early gestures based on shared knowledge about referents. Infant Behavior and Development, 39, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.02.015
Durt, C., Fuchs, T., & Tewes, C. (Eds.). (2017). Embodiment, enaction, and culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world. MIT Press
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1983). Patterns of parent-child interaction in a cross-cultural perspective. In A. Oliverio, & M. Zappella (Eds.), The behavior of human infants (pp. 177–218). Plenum Press
Español, S. (2003). De la emoción al espíritu metafórico. Semiosis e intersubjetividad en el desarrollo humano. Estudios de Psicología, 24(3), 277–311. https://doi.org/10.1174/021093903770411193
Estrada, L. (2019). Materialidad y prácticas educativas en la escuela infantil con niños/as entre 1-2 años: Una aproximación cultural, semiótica y pragmática [PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid]. http://hdl.handle.net/10486/688559
Fantasia, V., Fasulo, A., Costall, A., & López, B. (2014). Changing the game: Exploring infants’ participation in early play routines. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, article 522. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00522
Fantasia, V., Markova, G., Fasulo, A., Costall, A., & Reddy, V. (2016). Not just being lifted: Infants are sensitive to delay during a pick-up routine. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 2065. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02065
Fernández Castro, V., & Heras-Escribano, M. (2020). Social cognition: A normative approach. Acta Analytica, 35(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00388-y
Ferrer de Luna, J. (2019). Intersubjectivity in infancy: A second-person approach to ontogenetic development. Philosophical Psychology, 32(4), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1590679
Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Lavanchy-Scaiola, C., & Favez, N. (2010). The young infant’s triangular communication in the family: Access to threesome intersubjectivity? Conceptual considerations and case illustrations. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 20(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481881003716214
Foucault, M. (1976/1980). The history of sexuality: Vol. I (R. Hurley, Trans.). Vintage
Friard, O., & Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12584
Gallagher, S. (2020a). Action and interaction. Oxford University Press
Gallagher, S. (2020b). What in the world: Conversation and things in context. In A. Fiebich (Ed.), Minimal cooperation and shared agency (pp. 59–70). Springer
Gallagher, S., & Ransom, T. G. (2016). Artifacting minds: Material engagement theory and joint action. In G. Etzelmüller, & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture (pp. 337–351). De Gruyter
Goldman, A. I. (1992). In defense of the simulation theory. Mind & Language, 7(1-2), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00200.x
Gomila, A. (2001). La perspectiva de segunda persona: Mecanismos mentales de la intersubjetividad. Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 10, 65–86. https://doi.org/10.24310/Contrastescontrastes.v0i0.1448
Gomila, A. (2002). La perspectiva de segunda persona de la atribución mental. Azafea: Revista de Filosofía, 4, 123–138
Gomila, A. (2008). La relevancia moral de la perspectiva de segunda persona. In D. Pérez & L. Fernández Moreno (Eds.), Cuestiones filosóficas. Ensayos en honor de Eduardo Rabossi (pp. 155–173). Catálogos
Gomila, A., & Pérez, D. (2017). Lo que la segunda persona no es. In D. Pérez & D. Lawler (Eds.), La segunda persona y las emociones (pp. 275–297). SADAF
Gomila, A., & Pérez, D. (2018). Mental attribution in interaction: How the second person perspective dissolves the problem of other minds. Daímon, 75, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon/332611
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. Hirschfeld, & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). Cambridge University Press
Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145221
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Heras-Escribano, M. (2021). Pragmatism, enactivism, and ecological psychology: Towards a unified approach to post-cognitivism. Synthese, 198(S1), 337–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02111-1
Hoehl, S., & Markova, G. (2018). Moving developmental social neuroscience toward a second-person approach. PLOS Biology, 16(12), e3000055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000055
Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018548.001.0001
Iliopoulos, A. (2019). Material Engagement Theory and its philosophical ties to pragmatism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9596-5
Ishiguro, H. (2016). How a young child learns how to take part in mealtimes in a Japanese day-care center: A longitudinal case study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0222-9
Karasik, L. B., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ossmy, O., & Adolph, K. E. (2018). The ties that bind: Cradling in Tajikistan. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204428
Kärtner, J. (2015). The autonomous developmental pathway: The primacy of subjective mental states for human behavior and experience. Child Development, 86(4), 1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12377
Kärtner, J., Holodynski, M., & Wörmann, V. (2013). Parental ethnotheories, social practice and the culture-specific development of social smiling in infants. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 20(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.742112
Kärtner, J., Keller, H., & Yovsi, R. D. (2010). Mother-infant interaction during the first 3 months: The emergence of culture-specific contingency patterns. Child Development, 81(2), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01414.x
Kärtner, J., Schuhmacher, N., & Giner-Torréns, M. (2020). Culture and early social-cognitive development. In S. Hunnius & M. Meyer (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 254, pp. 225-246). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.06.011
Keller, H. (2003). Socialization for competence: Cultural models of infancy. Human Development, 46(5), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1159/000071937
Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of infancy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203936771
Keller, H. (2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited: Cultural manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00208.x
Keller, H., & Kärtner, J. (2013). Development: The cultural solution of universal developmental tasks. In M. J. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 63-116). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199930449.003.0002
Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2018). Reconceiving representation-hungry cognition: An ecological-enactive proposal. Adaptive Behavior, 26(4), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712318772778
Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2021a). Scaling-up skilled intentionality to linguistic thought. Synthese, 198(Suppl 1), S175–S194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02540-3
Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2021b). Skilled we-intentionality: Situating joint action in the living environment. Open Research Europe, 1, 54. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13411.2
Knappett, C. (2010). Communities of things and objects: A spatial perspective. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind (pp. 81–89). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 41(3), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.841
Lindblom, J. (2020). A radical reassessment of the body in social cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00987
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. The MIT press
Malafouris, L. (2015). Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind, 8(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2015.1111564
Malafouris, L. (2016). On human becoming and incompleteness: A material engagement approach to the study of embodiment in evolution and culture. In G. Etzelmüller, & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture (pp. 289–306). Mohr Siebeck
Malafouris, L. (2019). Mind and material engagement. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9606-7
Malafouris, L. (2021a). How does thinking relate to tool making? Adaptive Behavior, 29(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712320950539
Malafouris, L. (2021b). Mark making and human becoming. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 28(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09504-4
Martí, E. (2017). Body, culture and cognition: Avoiding reductionist temptations. Estudios de Psicología, 38(1), 140–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2016.1268392
McHale, J., Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Dickstein, S., Robertson, J., & Daley, M. (2008). New evidence for the social embeddedness of infants’ early triangular capacities. Family Process, 47(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00265.x
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M. (2002). Maternal mind–mindedness and attachment security as predictors of theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73(6), 1715–1726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00501
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.198.4312.75
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1998). Infant intersubjectivity: Broadening the dialogue to include imitation, identity and intention. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 47–62). Cambridge University Press
Michaelian, K., & Sant’Anna, A. (2021). Memory without content? Radical enactivism and (post)causal theories of memory. Synthese, 198(S1), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02119-7
Molitor, A., & Hsu, H. (2010). Child development across cultures. In K. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology. Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 75–109). Willey-Blackwell
Moreno-Núñez, A., & Alessandroni, N. (2021). What’s an early triadic interaction made of? A methodological proposal to study the musical dynamics of interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 63, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101572
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M. J. (2015). The rhythmic, sonorous and melodic components of adult-child-object interactions between 2 and 6 months old. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9298-2
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M. J. (2017). Rhythmic ostensive gestures: How adults facilitate infants’ entrance into early triadic interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 49, 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.09.003
Moro, C. (2014). Le référent dans l’intersubjectivité secondaire: Un objet aussi ignoré que « l’autre face de la lune »? In C. Moro, N. Muller Mirza, & P. Roman (Eds.), L’intersubjectivité en questions. Agrégat ou nouveau concept fédérateur pour la psychologie? (pp. 69-106). Antipodes
Moro, C. (2016). To encounter, to build the world and to become a human being. Advocating for a material-cultural turn in developmental psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(4), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9356-4
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001
Newton, P., Reddy, V., & Bull, R. (2000). Children’s everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151000165706
Nomikou, I., Leonardi, G., Radkowska, A., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Rohlfing, K. J. (2017). Taking up an active role: Emerging participation in early mother–infant interaction during peekaboo routines. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1656. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01656
Nomikou, I., Leonardi, G., Rohlfing, K. J., & Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2016). Constructing interaction: The development of gaze dynamics. Infant and Child Development, 25(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1975
Nomikou, I., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Szufnarowska, J. (2013). Educating attention: Recruiting, maintaining, and framing eye contact in early natural mother–infant interactions. Interaction Studies, 14(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.05nom
Nonaka, T., & Goldfield, E. C. (2018). Mother-infant interaction in the emergence of a tool-using skill at mealtime: A process of affordance selection. Ecological Psychology, 30(3), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2018.1438199
Nonaka, T., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2020). Social interaction in the emergence of toddler’s mealtime spoon use. Developmental Psychobiology, 62(8), 1124–1133. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21978
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107621
Paolucci, C. (2021). Cognitive semiotics: Integrating signs, minds, meaning and cognition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42986-7
Paugh, A. (2012). Local theories of child rearing. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 150–168). Wiley-Blackwell
Pérez, D. (2013). Sentir, desear, creer. Prometeo
Pérez, D. (2018). Filosofía, ciencias cognitivas y sentido común: El caso de la segunda persona de la atribución mental. Revista de Filosofia Moderna e Contemporânea, 6(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.26512/rfmc.v6i1.18654
Pérez, D., & Lawler, D. (2017). Introducción. In D. Pérez, & D. Lawler (Eds.), La segunda persona y las emociones (pp. 13–23). SADAF
Preucel, R. W. (2006). Archaeological semiotics. Blackwell Publishing
Prezioso, E., & Alessandroni, N. (2021). Enacting memories through and with things: Remembering as material engagement. Manuscript submitted for publication
Quintanilla, P. (2017). Atención compartida, triangulación y la perspectiva de la segunda persona. In D. Pérez, & D. Lawler (Eds.), La segunda persona y las emociones (pp. 141–166). SADAF
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2017). Timescales for understanding the agency of infants and caregivers. In N. J. Enfield, & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 161–167). Oxford University Press
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Nomikou, I. (2015). Beyond mechanistic interaction: Value-based constraints on meaning in language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1579), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01579
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., Dębska, A., & Sochanowicz, A. (2014). Pooling the ground: Understanding and coordination in collective sense making. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01233
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., Krzesicka, J., Klamann, N., Ziembowicz, K., Denkiewicz, M., Kukiełka, M., & Zubek, J. (2019). Cultural artifacts transform embodied practice: How a sommelier card shapes the behavior of dyads engaged in wine tasting. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2671. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02671
Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., Nomikou, I., & Rohlfing, K. J. (2013). Young children’s dialogical actions: The beginnings of purposeful intersubjectivity. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 5(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2013.2273258
Reddy, V. (2000). Coyness in early infancy. Developmental Science, 3(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00112
Reddy, V. (2005). Before the ‘third element’: Understanding attention to self. In N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Joint attention (pp. 85–109). Clarendon Press
Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Harvard University Press
Reddy, V. (2019). Meeting infant affect. Developmental Psychology, 55(9), 2020–2024. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000773
Reddy, V., & Mireault, G. (2015). Teasing and clowning in infancy. Current Biology, 25(1), R20–R23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.021
Reddy, V., & Morris, P. (2004). Participants don’t need theories: Knowing minds in engagement. Theory & Psychology, 14(5), 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354304046177
Reddy, V., Markova, G., & Wallot, S. (2013). Anticipatory adjustments to being picked up in infancy. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065289
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035
Rochat, P. (1989). Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.6.871
Rodríguez, C. (2009). The ‘circumstances’ of gestures: Proto-interrogatives and private gestures. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.002
Rodríguez, C. (2012). The functional permanence of the object: A product of consensus. In E. Martí, & C. Rodríguez (Eds.), After Piaget (pp. 123–150). Transaction Publishers
Rodríguez, C., Basilio, M., Cárdenas, K., Cavalcante, S., Moreno-Núñez, A., Palacios, P., & Yuste, N. (2018). Object pragmatics: Culture and communication – the bases for early cognitive development. In A. Rosa, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 223–244). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662229.013
Rodríguez, C., Benassi, J., Estrada, L., & Alessandroni, N. (2017). Early social interactions with people and objects. In A. Slater, & G. Bremner (Eds.), An introduction to developmental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 213–258). Wiley-Blackwell
Rossmanith, N., & Reddy, V. (2016). Structure and openness in the development of self in infancy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(1-2), 237–257
Rossmanith, N., Costall, A., Reichelt, A. F., López, B., & Reddy, V. (2014). Jointly structuring triadic spaces of meaning and action: Book sharing from 3 months on. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01390
Rucińska, Z., & Gallagher, S. (2021). Making imagination even more embodied: Imagination, constraint and epistemic relevance. Synthese, 199(3-4), 8143–8170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03156-x
Ryle, G. (1949/1951). The concept of mind. Hutchinson House
Satne, G. (2021). Understanding others by doing things together: An enactive account. Synthese, 198(S1), 507–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02692-2
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660
Scotto, C. (2002). Interacción y atribución mental: La perspectiva de la segunda persona. Análisis Filosófico, 22(2), 135–152
Segundo-Ortin, M., & Heras-Escribano, M. (2021). Neither mindful nor mindless, but minded: Habits, ecological psychology, and skilled performance. Synthese, 199(3-4), 10109–10133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03238-w
Shapiro, L. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. Routledge
Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2019). An introduction to mixed models for experimental psychology. In D. Spieler & E. Schumacher (Eds.), New methods in cognitive psychology (1st ed.) (pp. 4-31). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318405-2
Sterelny, K. (2004). Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In R. Schantz (Ed.), The externalist challenge (pp. 239–254). Walter de Gruyter
Striano, T., & Reid, V. M. (2006). Social cognition in the first year. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.006
Surian, L., & Franchin, L. (2020). On the domain specificity of the mechanisms underpinning spontaneous anticipatory looks in false-belief tasks. Developmental Science, 23(6), e12955. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12955
Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18(7), 580–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01943.x
Thibault, P. (2004). Brain, mind and signifying body. Continuum
Thibault, P. (2008). Face-to-face communication and body language. In G. Antos & E. Ventola (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 285-330). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211399.2.285
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy. A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–347). Cambridge University Press
Trevarthen, C. (1993). The self born in intersubjectivity: The psychology of an infant communicating. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Emory Symposia in Cognition, 5. The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self-knowledge (pp. 121–173). Cambridge University Press
Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol (pp. 183–229). Academic Press
Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)62273-1
Valsiner, J. (2000/2005). Culture and human development. Sage
Van Alphen, F. (2014). Tango and enactivism: First steps in exploring the dynamics and experience of interaction. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9267-1
van Dijk, L., & Rietveld, E. (2020). Situated imagination. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09701-2
Vietri, M., Alessandroni, N., & Piro, M. C. (2021). Usos de objetos y anticipaciones corporales en el desarrollo temprano. Revista de Psicología. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.24215/2422572Xe089
Vietri, M., Alessandroni, N., & Piro, M. C. (2019a). El estudio de la atribución mentalista desde la perspectiva de segunda persona: Una revisión metodológica. Revista de Psicología, 18(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.24215/2422572Xe026
Vietri, M., Alessandroni, N., & Piro, M. C. (2019b). La perspectiva de segunda persona de la atribución de estados mentales: Una revisión sistemática de su estado actual de desarrollo. Psykhe, 28(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.28.2.1280
Voestermans, P., & Verheggen, T. (2013). Culture as embodiment. The social tuning of behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wallot, S., & Leonardi, G. (2018). Analyzing multivariate dynamics using cross-recurrence quantification analysis (CRQA), diagonal-cross-recurrence profiles (DCRP), and multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA). Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02232
Welch, S. (2019). The phenomenology of a performative knowledge system. Palgrave
Wellman, H. M. (2014). Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199334919.001.0001
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5
Wörmann, V., Holodynski, M., Kärtner, J., & Keller, H. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of the development of the social smile. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(3), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.03.002
Xu, T. L., de Barbaro, K., Abney, D. H., & Cox, R. F. A. (2020). Finding structure in time: Visualizing and analyzing behavioral time series. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01457
Yakhlef, A., & Rietveld, E. (2020). Innovative action as skilled affordance-responsiveness: An embodied‐mind approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12345
Zahavi, D. (2019). Second-person engagement, self-alienation, and group-identification. Topoi, 38(1), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9444-6
Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families: Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.25.3.200
Funding
This work was supported by a doctoral fellowship (Res. 778/17) granted to MV by the Universidad Nacional de La Plata (Argentina), the FPU16/05358 grant awarded to NA by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport (Spain), and the S049 research project (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina) led by MCP.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vietri, M., Alessandroni, N. & Piro, M.C. Intentional Understanding Through Action Coordination in Early Triadic Interactions. Integr. psych. behav. 57, 655–676 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09677-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09677-5