Joint action without robust theory of mind

Abstract

Intuitively, even very young children can act jointly. For instance, a child and her parent can build a simple tower together. According to developmental psychologists, young children develop theory of mind by, among other things, participating in joint actions like this. Yet many leading philosophical accounts of joint action presuppose that participants have a robust theory of mind. In this article, I examine two philosophical accounts of joint action designed to circumvent this presupposition, and then I proffer my own novel account of what makes (at least some) interactions between very young children and others joint. I argue that children can take up without deliberation intentions with a joint content that have been transmitted to them by others. In doing so, children can come to share intentions with others, and by acting on these shared intentions they can come to act jointly, all without employing a robust theory of mind.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Much of what I say in this section has been rehearsed in other places (Tollefsen 2005, pp. 77–84; Butterfill 2012, pp. 24–32; Pacherie 2013, pp. 1823–1826).

  2. 2.

    It is not entirely clear how we should think about the difference between implicit and explicit theory of mind. Psychologists sometimes note that mental state representations in very young children seem to influence involuntary behavior (e.g. gazes) more readily than voluntary behavior (e.g. verbal responses), and this is perhaps crucial. The concept of access-consciousness might be helpful (Block 1995). One might say that an agent’s representations of mental states are explicit to the extent that they are access-conscious. If this is right, then mental state representations start to become explicit at a young age, as indicated, for instance, by the fact that 18- and 24-month-old infants spontaneously intervene in anticipation of action mistakes to correct others (Knudsen and Liszkowski 2012).

  3. 3.

    Interestingly, theory of mind continues to develop even into late adolescence (Dumontheil et al. 2010; Vetter et al. 2013).

  4. 4.

    This characterization is a modification of Tollefsen’s proposal (2005, p. 81). There are various other ways that RTM could be characterized, many of which are compatible with my argument. All that matters for my purposes is that some distinction between the mentalizing capacities of very young children and the mentalizing capacities of adults can be made, where the former capacities are not sufficient for participation in the sort of shared intentions typically discussed by philosophers.

  5. 5.

    For a more nuanced articulation, see Bratman 2014, pp. 84–85.

  6. 6.

    There may be more to the story when we consider the actions of collectives that constitute agents in their own right. For an illuminating discussion of some of the unique features of large, structured groups see French (1979) and List and Pettit (2011).

  7. 7.

    For a discussion of meshing, see Bratman 2014, pp. 53–56.

  8. 8.

    For philosophical accounts of common knowledge, see Lewis 1969, pp. 52–60 and Gilbert 1989, pp. 188–195. Both involve higher-order representations. Because other leading accounts of shared intentions require that participants have common knowledge about something, they are also subject to some of the worries I direct at Bratmanian Shared Intentions.

  9. 9.

    Additionally, people with cognitive disabilities who have difficulty representing and responding to the mental states of others (e.g. autistic individuals, see Baron-Cohen 2001; Frith 2001) can seemingly act jointly, but it is likewise implausible to suggest that their acting jointly can best be explained in terms of Bratmanian Shared Intentions.

  10. 10.

    Carpenter (2009) argues that Tollefsen underestimates the cognitive capacities of very young children and that even very young children have a limited ability to participate in Bratmanian Shared Intentions. While I disagree with this latter claim, Carpenter and I agree that very young children have some understanding of others’ mental states and are motivated to engage in joint action. We also agree that joint action in very young children is “very joint”.

  11. 11.

    Thus, shared goals fulfill one of the three functions that characterize Bratmanian Shared Intentions. But shared goals do not have the function of coordinating plans or structuring bargaining, and in this way they differ from Bratmanian Shared Intentions (ibid., p. 39).

  12. 12.

    Butterfill cites Gergely et al. (1995), Woodward and Sommerville (2000), Csibra et al. (2003), and Luo and Baillargeon (2005).

  13. 13.

    For a discussion from social psychology on group-identification, see Oakes et al. (1994).

  14. 14.

    Bacharach thinks that the second step is logically inevitable once the first step is completed, assuming one’s contribution is necessary for the group’s action, because from A → B we can infer O(A) → O(B), where O(x) stands for ‘it ought to be the case that x’ (ibid., pp. 136, 152–153 n. 16).

  15. 15.

    Cf. Bacharach’s discussion of the different mechanisms that can lead to cooperative coordination (2006, pp. 122–127).

  16. 16.

    Possibly Pacherie could avoid this worry by framing (i′) in terms of presuppositions. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

  17. 17.

    Thanks to Arnel Blake Batoon for helpful discussion concerning this passage.

  18. 18.

    There are two ways one could understand this sharing talk. On the one hand, one could individuate intentions by their deliberative source, which would imply that there is literally one intention stretched between the issuer and the addressee. The shared intention, then, would have token states of each individual as proper parts. On the other hand, one could maintain that the issuer and addressee do not literally share an intention. Instead, they have numerically distinct intentions with the same content, deliberative history, and normative properties. On this understanding, what is meant in saying that the two “share” an intention or that the intention is the “same” is that the issuer and addressee both have intentions with these shared properties. I prefer the former, more literal understanding, but my argument does not turn on it. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pressing me for clarification at this point.

  19. 19.

    Specifying this “special way” is notoriously difficult. Deviant causal chains show that causal relations are not sufficient (Chisholm 1966; Davidson 1973).

  20. 20.

    Notice that in ordinary cases, my own reasons can determine the teleological structure of my actions even if I am not attending to, or have temporarily forgotten, why I am doing what I am doing (Roth 2014, p. 644; Hanser 2015, pp. 116–117; Roth 2017, p. 78).

  21. 21.

    For instance, Joseph Raz argues that commands generate protected reasons, which provide addresses with both a first-order reason to ɸ and a second-order reason to exclude from deliberation certain first-order reasons to not-ɸ (Raz 2003, pp. 17–18). For a hybrid account, according to which commands and requests generate reasons for the addressee to act upon the issuer’s communicated intention, see Hanser (2015).

  22. 22.

    Someone may disagree. Having a goal is sometimes more like having an aspiration than an intention. For instance, I aspire to be a falconer one day, but I do not have any concrete plans to that effect, and this goal does not influence any of my planning. Otiose goals of this kind (assuming they are rightly called “goals”) are not relevant to my discussion, so I ignore this complication.

  23. 23.

    The experimenter has other reasons for participating in the joint actions (including those related to the experiment itself) to which the children are not entitled, because the children could not understand or endorse them.

  24. 24.

    It seems as if Bratman would be sympathetic to my argument in this section (Bratman 2014, pp. 104–105).

  25. 25.

    We probably should not think that this self-referential element is part of the content of the intention in any psychologically demanding sense, however, despite what Searle may have believed. Cf. Burge’s (1991) critique of Searle’s views concerning self-reference within the intentional content of perceptual representations.

  26. 26.

    Here it might seem to matter whether we take the shared intention talk literally (see footnote 18). It does not matter, however, because even if the individuals strictly speaking have distinct intentions, those intentions have the same normative properties, including the same satisfaction conditions. Hence, the intentions are satisfied only if the intentions (taken together) cause the action.

  27. 27.

    My conclusion comports with the spirit of Carpenter’s (2009) proposal (see footnote 10). Carpenter suggests that very young children have some capacity to participate in Bratmanian Shared Intentions. While I disagree with this claim, I have argued that very young children can share intentions in a different but functionally similar way. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me.

References

  1. Adam, M., et al. (2017). Agency cues and 11-month-olds’ and adults’ anticipation of action goals. Cognitive Development, 43, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2017.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychologial Review, 116(4), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bacharach, M. (2006). In N. Gold & R. Sugden (Eds.), Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  4. Baillargeon, R., et al. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind and autism: A review. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 23, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about the function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bratman, M. E. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bratman, M. E. (1999). Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brownell, C. A. (2011). Early developments in joint action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0056-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burge, T. (1991). Vision and intentional content. In E. Le Pore & R. van Gulick (Eds.), John Searle and his critics (pp. 195–213). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burge, T. (1993). Content preservation. The Philosophical Review, 102(4), 457–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Butterfill, S. (2012). Joint action and development. Philosophical Quarterly, 62(246), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.00005.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Butterfill, S. A., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Joint action: What is shared? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0062-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carpenter, M. (2009). Just how joint is joint action in infancy? Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01026.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chisholm, R. (1966). Freedom and action. In K. Lehrer (Ed.), Freedom and determinism (pp. 11–44). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clements, A. W., & Perner, J. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development, 9, 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clements, W. A., et al. (2000). Promoting the transition from implicit to explicit understanding: A training study of false belief. Developmental Science, 3(1), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Csibra, G., et al. (2003). One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(02)00112-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davidson, D. (1973). Freedom to act. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Essays on freedom of action (pp. 137–156). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dummett, M. (1994). Testimony and memory. In B. Matilal & A. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Knowing from words (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dumontheil, I., et al. (2010). Online usage of theory of mind continues to develop in late adolescence. Developmental Science, 13(2), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00888.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. French, P. A. (1979). The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(3), 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Frith, U. (2001). Mind blindness and the brain in autism. Neuron, 32, 969–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gergely, G., et al. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-h.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gold, N., & Sugden, R. (2007). Collective intentions and team agency. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(3), 109–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanser, M. (2015). Doing another’s bidding. In G. Pavlakos & V. Rodriguez-Blanco (Eds.), Reasons and intentions in law and practical agency (pp. 95–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heyes, C. M., & Frith, C. D. (2014). The cultural evolution of mind reading. Science, 344, 6190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Knudsen, B., & Liszkowski, U. (2012). Eighteen- and 24-month-old infants correct others in anticipationof action mistakes. Developmental Science, 15(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. List, C., & Philip, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16(8), 601–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01582.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Neill, D. K. (1996). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67, 659–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Osterhaus, C., et al. (1991). Scaling of advanced theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 87(6), 1971–1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pacherie, E. (2011). Framing joint action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pacherie, E. (2013). Intentional joint agency: Shared intention lite. Synthese, 190(10), 1817–1839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0263-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Raz, J. (2003). Legitimate authority. In The authority of law: Essays on law and morality (2nd Edn., pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Roth, A. S. (2003). Practical intersubjectivity. In Socializing metaphysics: The nature of social reality (pp. 65–92). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Roth, A. S. (2004). Shared agency and contralateral commitments. The Philosophical Review, 113(3), 359–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Roth, A. S. (2014). Prediction, authority, and entitlement in shared activity. Nous, 48(4), 626–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Roth, A. S. (2017). Entitlement to reasons for action. In D. Shoemaker (Ed.), Oxford studies in agency and responsibility (Vol. 4, pp. 75–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. San Juan, V., & Astington, J. W. (2012). Bridging the gap between implicit and explicit understanding: How language development promotes the processing and representation of false belief. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.2011.02051.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Southgate, V., et al. (2008). Infants attribute goals even to biomechanically impossible actions. Cognition, 107(3), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Surian, L., & Geraci, A. (2012). Where will the triangle look for it? Attributing false beliefs to a geometric shape at 17 months. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tager-Flusberg, H., & Sullivan, K. (2000). A componential view of theory of mind: Evidence from Williams syndrome. Cognition, 76, 59–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2006). Mother and infant talk about mental states relates to desire language and emotion understanding. Child Development, 77(2), 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2008). Stepping stones to others’ minds: Maternal talk relates to child mental state language and emotion understanding at 15, 24, and 33 months. Child Development, 79(2), 284–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tollefsen, D. (2005). Let’s pretend! Children and joint action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 35(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393104271925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vetter, N. C., et al. (2013). Ongoing development of social cognition in adolescence. Child Neuropsychology, 19(6), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2012.718324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Warneken, F., et al. (2006). Cooperative activies in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development, 77(3), 640–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00895.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Woodward, A. L., & Sommerville, J. A. (2000). Twelve-month-old infants interpret action in context. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 11(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I have benefited from conversations with many people in the course of writing this paper. Thanks especially to Kevin Falvey, Matthew Hanser, Dan Korman, Abe Roth, the audience at the 2018 Collective Intentionality conference at Tufts University, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Story.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Story, D. Joint action without robust theory of mind. Synthese (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02386-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Joint action
  • Theory of mind
  • Developmental psychology
  • Team reasoning