Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The enactment of shared agency in teams exploring Mars through rovers

  • Published:
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the enactment of agency in the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. We argue that MER functioned as a distributed cognitive system, made up of highly specialized, though complementary, elements. To explain how a sense of shared agency was attained therein, we augment the distributed account with Tollefsen and Gallagher’s Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47, 95-110, (2017) theory of joint agency. It claims joint actions involve a cascade of shared distal, proximal, and motor intentions, each with its own content and timescale, and that narrative processes are crucial for stabilizing shared intentions. We argue MER possessed these three levels of intention, though they fell on different elements of the distributed cognitive system, and their timescales were longer than mundane cases of joint action. Scientists, collaborating with engineers, enacted shared distal and proximal intentions, while rovers enacted the motor intentions. Moreover, we show that we-narratives, including a commitment to consensus-based operations and an epistemic strategy for discovering the geological history of Mars, constrained the formation of distal and proximal intentions such that they could genuinely be attributed to the group. Nonetheless, our distributed account does not fully capture how rovers shaped the sense of embodiment of team members. Scientists and engineers described themselves as ‘becoming the rover,’ which allowed them to have a sense of presence on Mars. We argue this can be explained by the Material Engagement Theory, which complements the distributed cognition theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aymerich-Franch, L., Petit, D., Ganesh, G., & Kheddar, A. (2015). Embodiment of a humanoid robot is preserved during partial and delayed control. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO 2015), Lyon, France.

  • Baccarini, M., Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Sillan, O., Fame, A., & Roy, A. (2014). Tool use imagery triggers tool incorporation in the body schema. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, R. (2021). Into the deep. A memoir from the man who found Titanic. National Geographic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesiadecki, J., Leger, P. C., & Maimone, M. W. (2007). Tradeoffs between directed and autonomous driving on the Mars exploration rovers. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 26(1), 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, N., Debener, S., Spychala, N., Bongartz, E., Sörös, P., Müller, H. H. O., & Philipsen, A. (2018). The senses of agency and ownership: A review. Frontiers in Psycholology, 9, 535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, D., & Vervaeke, J. (2021). Distributed cognition and the experience of presence in the Mars Exploration Rover mission. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 689932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, D., Rorie, R. C., Morgan, C., & Vu, K.-P.L. (2014). A situated approach to the acquisition of shared SA in team contexts. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15, 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, D., Morgan, C., Kraut, J., Ziccardi, J., Sturre, L., Strybel, T. Z., & Vu, K.-P.L. (2016). Evaluating probe techniques and a situated theory of situation awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 436–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W. J. (2012). Working on Mars: Voyages of scientific discovery with the Mars exploration rovers. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42(1), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Duran, J. L., & Taylor, A. R. (2007). Team cognition in experienced command-and-control teams. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(3), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.13.3.146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2015). Maintaining shared mental models over long-duration exploration missions: Literature review & operational assessment. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas. NASA/TM-2015–218590.

  • Fischer, U. & Mosier, K. (2014). The impact of communication delay and medium on team performance and communication in distributed teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp.115–119). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

  • Fiore, S. M., & Wiltshire, T. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M. A., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S., & Tollefsen, D. (2019). Advancing the “we” through narrative. Topoi, 38, 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2012). The phenomenological mind (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haans, A. & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2012). Embodiment and telepresence: Toward a comprehensive theoretical framework. Interacting with Computers, 24, 211–218.

  • Habermas, Y. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, W. Rehg (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73, 532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heersmink, R. (2015). Dimensions of integration in embedded and extended cognitive systems. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14, 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers it speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2015). Embodied understanding. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 6, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00875

  • Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry. Microcosm Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Konradt, U., Schipper, M. C., Krys, S., & Fulmer, A. (2021). Teams in transition: A three-wave longitudinal study of reflection, implicit and explicit coordination and performance improvements. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 677896. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677896.PMID:34163412;PMCID:PMC8215207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape of the mind. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2016). Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33, 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menary, R. (2010). Cognitive integration and the extended mind. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 227–244). MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindell, D. A. (2015). Our robots, ourselves. Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirmalek, Z. (2020). Making time on Mars. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mishkin, A. H., Limonadi, D., Laubach, S. L., & Bass, D. S. (2006). Working the Martian night shift—the MER surface operations process. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 13, 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niler, A. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., Larson, L. E., Plummer, G., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. (2020). Conditioning team cognition: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620972112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ötting, S. K., Masjutin, L., Steil, J. J. & Maier, G. W. (2020). Let’s work together: A meta-analysis on robot design features that enable successful human-robot interaction at work. Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820966433

  • Pacherie, E. (2006). Toward a dynamic theory of intentions. In S. Pockett, W. P. Banks, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), Does consciousness cause behavior? (pp. 145–167). MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B., Kim, K. H., Schunn, C. D., Tollinger, I., & Vera, A. (2013). Reuse and recycle: The development of adaptive expertise, routine expertise, and novelty in a large research team. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentsch, J., Mello, A., & Delise, L. (2010). Collaboration and meaning analysis process in intense problem solving teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 287–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., Gibson, C., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., & Clark, M. (2019). Building team effectiveness through adaptation: Team knowledge and implicit and explicit coordination. Organizational Psychology Review, 9, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619869972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Academy of management review, 33(1), 163-184.

  • Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Why team cognition? An overview. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 3–8). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-001

  • Salmela, M. & Nagatsu, M. (2017). How does it really feel to act together? Shared emotions and the phenomenology of we-agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16, 449-470.

  • Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Jenkins, D. P., Ladva, D., Rafferty, L., & Young, M. S. (2009). Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seth, A. K., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2012). An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, W., & Bell, J. (2021). Discovering Mars: A history of observation and exploration of the Red Planet. University of Arizona Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Squyres, S. (2005). Roving Mars: Spirit, opportunity, and the exploration of the red planet. Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Walker, G. H. (2015). Let the reader decide: A paradigm shift for situation awareness in sociotechnical systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9(1), 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2009). Genotype and phenotype schemata as models of situation awareness in dynamic command and control teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(3), 480–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–226). MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, D. (2014). A dynamic theory of shared intention and the phenomenology of joint action. In R. Chant, F. Hindrinks, & G. Preyer (Eds.), From individual to collective intentionality: New essays (pp. 13–33). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, D., & Gallagher, S. (2017). We-narratives and the stability and depth of shared agency. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollinger, I., Schunn, C. D., & Vera, A. H. (2006). What changes when a large team becomes more expert? In the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Velleman, D. J. (2007). Self to Self: Selected Essays. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vertesi, J. (2012). Seeing like a Rover: Visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Social Studies of Science, 42, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vertesi, J. (2015). Seeing like a rover: How robots, teams, and images craft knowledge of mars. IL, University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A., et al. (2008), Light-toned salty soils and coexisting Si-rich species discovered by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit in Columbia Hills. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 113, E12S40.

  • Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA, 90840, USA

    Dan Chiappe

  2. Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    John Vervaeke

Authors
  1. Dan Chiappe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Vervaeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Chiappe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: The rover tools

Appendix: The rover tools

Alpha-Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS): Detects elements by bombarding rocks with alpha rays and x-rays, and detecting the energy of these particles as they bounce back from the surface of the rock.

Hazard cameras (Hazcams): Mounted on lower portion of the rover, two in front and two in rear, to image potential obstacles in black and white, with fish-eye lenses.

Instrument Deployment Device (IDD): The mobile rover arm that has various tools attached.

Microscopic Imager (MI): Located on the rover IDD and is a combination camera and microscope.

Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES): Mast-mounted spectrometer that identifies mineral composition at a distance.

Mössbauer spectrometer (MB): IDD mounted spectrometer that uses gamma rays to determine the composition and quantity of iron-bearing minerals on rock surfaces.

Navigation cameras (Navcams): Two mast-mounted black and white cameras that are used to image terrain in stereo for planning drives and deploying other instruments.

Panoramic cameras (Pancams): Two mast-mounted cameras that provide color images in stereo with 13 filters.

Rock abrasion tool (RAT): IDD mounted tool with rotating teeth that grinds holes onto the surface of rocks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiappe, D., Vervaeke, J. The enactment of shared agency in teams exploring Mars through rovers. Phenom Cogn Sci 21, 857–881 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-021-09791-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-021-09791-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation