, Volume 79, Supplement 9, pp 1601–1622 | Cite as

Three Kinds of Collective Attitudes

  • Christian ListEmail author
Original Article


This paper offers a comparison of three different kinds of collective attitudes: aggregate, common, and corporate attitudes. They differ not only in their relationship to individual attitudes—e.g., whether they are “reducible” to individual attitudes—but also in the roles they play in relation to the collectives to which they are ascribed. The failure to distinguish them can lead to confusion, in informal talk as well as in the social sciences. So, the paper’s message is an appeal for disambiguation.


Group Agent Female Genital Mutilation Individual Attitude Aggregation Rule Common Attitude 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This paper is based on a talk (offering a review of the relevant conceptual terrain) that I have given on multiple occasions: at a conference on the “Epistemic Life of Groups”, Institute of Philosophy, London, March 2011; at a CSMN Symposium on “Social ontology and collective agency”, University of Oslo, May 2011; at the workshop on “Group Agency and Collective Intentionality”, University of Vienna, May 2012; at the History Lab conference in London, June 2012; at a conference on “Principles in Practice”, University of Cambridge, June 2012; at a conference on “Epistemic groups and collaborative research in science”, Nancy, December 2012; at a seminar in the LSE’s Anthropology Department, May 2013; and at the 2013 ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 2013. I am grateful to the audiences at these events, Paul Egré, Laura Valentini, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and to Alexandru Baltag and Andrés Perea for discussion. Furthermore, I am greatly indebted to Philip Pettit, with whom I have had numerous conversations on the present topic in the context of our collaborative work.


  1. Arrow, K. (1951/1963). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6), 1236–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberà, S., Gul, F., & Stacchetti, E. (1993). Generalized median voter schemes and committees. Journal of Economic Theory, 61(2), 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bratman, M. E. (1999). Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared agency: A planning theory of acting together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. (2005). Joint attention and common knowledge. In N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 287–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chwe, M. S.-Y. (2001). Rational ritual: Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2007). Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Economics and Philosophy, 23(3), 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2010). The aggregation of propositional attitudes: Towards a general theory. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 3, 215–234.Google Scholar
  11. French, P. A. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41, 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Goldman, A. (2010). Why social epistemology is real epistemology. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Social epistemology (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halpern, J. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge: A survey. In D. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1990). Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. Journal of the ACM, 37(3), 549–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanson, R. (2013). Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs? Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, F., & Pettit, P. (1988). Functionalism and broad content. Mind, 97(387), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. List, C. (2012). The theory of judgment aggregation: An introductory review. Synthese, 187(1), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. List, C. (2013). Social choice Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2013 Edition. From
  22. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18(1), 89–110.Google Scholar
  23. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2006). Group agency and supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2012). Episteme symposium on group agency: Replies to Gaus, Cariani, Sylvan, and Briggs. Episteme, 9(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. List, C., & Spiekermann, K. (2013). Methodological individualism and holism in political science: A reconciliation. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackie, G. (1996). Ending footbinding and infibulation: A convention account. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mackie, G. (2000). Female genital cutting: The beginning of the end. In B. Shell-Duncan & Y. Hernlund (Eds.), Female circumcision: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 245–282). Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moulin, H. (1980). On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice, 35(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Gorman, H. J. (1975). Pluralistic ignorance and white estimates of white support for racial segregation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(3), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ober, J. (2008). Democratic knowledge: Innovation and learning in classical athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Perea, A. (2012). Epistemic game theory: Reasoning and choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pettit, P. (2001). A theory of freedom: From the psychology to the politics of agency. Cambridge and New York: Polity and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pettit, P. (2003a). Groups with minds of their own. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing metaphysics (pp. 167–193). New York: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Pettit, P. (2003b). Akrasia, collective and individual. In S. Stroud & C. Tappolet (Eds.), Weakness of will and practical irrationality (pp. 68–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pettit, P., & Schweikard, D. (2006). Joint actions and group agents. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(1), 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinton, A. (1975). The presidential address: Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76, 1–27+viii.Google Scholar
  40. Riker, W. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  41. Satterthwaite, M. (1975). Strategyproofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondences for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Nonreductive individualism. Part I—Supervenience and wild disjunction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(4), 537–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Nonreductive individualism. Part II—Social causation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schweikard, D. P., & Schmid, H. B. (2013). Collective intentionality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2013 Edition. From
  45. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. Sellars, W. (1968). Science and metaphysics: Variations on Kantian themes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Deliberating groups vs. prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme, 3(3), 192–213.Google Scholar
  48. Tollefsen, D. P. (2002a). Collective intentionality and the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tollefsen, D. P. (2002b). Organizations as true believers. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(3), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuomela, R. (2007). The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanderschraaf, P., & Sillari, G. (2001). Common knowledge. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2014 Edition. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Government and PhilosophyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations