Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 485–502 | Cite as

Viewing Others as Equals: the Non-cognitive Roots of Shared Intentionality

  • Alejandro Rosas
  • Juan Pablo Bermúdez


We propose two adjustments to the classic view of shared intentionality (our capacity to share mental states of various sorts) as based on conceptual-level cognitive skills. The first one takes into account that infants and young children display this capacity, but lack conceptual-level cognitive skills. The second one seeks to integrate cognitive and non-cognitive skills into that capacity. This second adjustment is motivated by two facts. First, there is an enormous difference between human infants and our closest living primate relatives with respect to the range and scale of goal sharing and cooperation. Second, recent evidence suggests that there are hardly any differences in their mental-state attribution capacities. We argue therefore that our distinctively human capacity for shared intentionality is due to the effect on our cognitive skills of a (probably inborn) practical attitude. Accordingly, we propose that cognitive and practical skills, working together, produce our capacity for shared intentionality, and review evidence suggesting that the practical skill in question consists in the ability to adopt an attitude of equality.



This work was funded by a short term grant of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to Alejandro Rosas.


  1. Andersen, S., S. Ertaç, U. Gneezy, M. Hoffman, and J.A. List. 2011. Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games. American Economic Review 101 (7): 3427–3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apperly, I., and S. Butterfill. 2009. Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116: 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillargeon, R., R.M. Scott, and Z. He. 2010. False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Science 14 (3): 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillargeon, R., P. Setoh, S. Sloane, K. Jin, and L. Bian. 2014. Infant social cognition: Psychological and sociomoral reasoning. In The cognitive neurosciences, ed. M.S. Gazzaniga and G.R. Mangun, 5th ed., 7–14. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baillargeon, R., R.M. Scott, and L. Bian. 2016. Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barwise, Jon. 1988. Three views of common knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, ed. Moshe Y. Vardi, 365–379. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Bateson, Mary Catherine. 1975. Mother-infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversational interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 263 (1 Developmental): 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blake, P.R., and K. McAuliffe. 2011. “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition 120: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bermúdez, José and Cahen, Arnon, "Nonconceptual Mental Content", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>
  10. Blackburn, Simon. 1994. Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blomberg, O. 2015. Shared goals and development. The Philosophical Quarterly 65 (258): 94–101. Scholar
  12. Bratman, M. 1992. Shared cooperative activity. Philosophical Review 101 (2): 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buttelmann, D., M. Carpenter, and M. Tomasello. 2009. Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition 112: 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buttelmann, D., F. Buttelmann, M. Carpenter, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2017. Great apes distinguish true from false beliefs in an interactive helping task. PLoS One 12 (4): e0173793. Scholar
  15. Butterfill, S., and I. Apperly. 2013. How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language 28 (5): 606–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cussins, A. 1990. The connectionist construction of concepts. In The philosophy of artificial intelligence, ed. M. Boden. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. De Bruin, L., D. Strijbos, and M. Slors. 2011. Early social cognition: Alternatives to implicit mindreading. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (3): 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, G. 1982. The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fehr, E., H. Bernhard, and B. Rockenbach. 2008. Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454: 1079–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallagher, S. 2001. The practice of mind: Theory, simulation, or primary interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (5–7): 83–107.Google Scholar
  21. Geraci, A., and L. Surian. 2011. The developmental roots of fairness: Infants’ reactions to equal and unequal distributions of resources. Developmental Science 14: 1012–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gianino, A., and E.Z. Tronick. 1988. The mutual regulation model: The infant’s self and interactive regulation, coping, and defensive capacities. In Stress and coping across development, ed. T. Field, P. McCabe, and N. Schneiderman, 47–68. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, K., L. Young, and A. Waytz. 2012. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry 23: 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haidt, J., and C. Joseph. 2008. The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In The innate mind, ed. P. Carruthers et al., 367–444. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, K., M.W. Oram, M.W. Campbell, T.M. Eppley, R.W. Byrne, and F.B.M. de Waal. 2016. Chimpanzee uses manipulative gaze cues to conceal and reveal information to foraging competitor. American Journal of Primatology 79 (3): e22622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamlin, J. Kiley, Karen Wynn, and Paul Bloom. 2007. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450 (7169): 557–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamlin, J. Kiley, and Karen Wynn. 2011. Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development 26 (1): 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hare, B., J. Call, B. Agnetta, and M. Tomasello. 2000. Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour 59: 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hare, B., J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2001. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour 61: 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harman, Gilbert, and Jonathan Bennett. 1977. Linguistic Behaviour. Language 53 (2): 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirata, Satoshi, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa. 2001. Tactics to obtain a hidden food item in chimpanzee pairs (Pan troglodytes). Animal Cognition 4 (3-4): 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanakogi, Y., Y. Inoue, G. Matsuda, D. Butler, K. Hiraki, and M. Myowa-Yamakoshi. 2017. Preverbal infants affirm third-party interventions that protect victims from aggressors. Nature Human Behavior 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
  33. Kovács, A., E. Teglas, and A. Endress. 2010. The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science 330: 1830–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krupenye, C., F. Kano, S. Hirata, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2016. Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science 354: 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, D. 1969. Convention, a philosophical study Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Liszkowski, U., M. Carpenter, A. Henning, T. Striano, and M. Tomasello. 2004. Twelve-month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science 7: 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lucas, M.M., L. Wagner, and C. Chow. 2008. Fair game: The intuitive economics of resource exchange in four-year olds. J. Soc. Evol. Cult. Psychol. 2: 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAuliffe, K., P.R. Blake, N. Steinbeis, and F. Warneken. 2017. The developmental foundations of human fairness. Nature Human Behaviour 1 (2): 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menzel, E.W. 1974. A group of chimpanzees in a one-acre field. In Behavior of nonhuman primates, ed. A.M. Shrier and F. Stollnitz, vol. 5, 83–153. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Michael, John. 2011. Shared Emotions and Joint Action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (2): 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moll, H., and M. Tomasello. 2007. Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 362: 639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murray, L., and C. Trevarthen. 1985. Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In Social perception in infants, ed. T.M. Field and N.A. Fox, 177–197. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  43. Musholt, K. 2015. Thinking about oneself. From nonconceptual content to the concept of a self. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Musholt, K. 2017. The personal and the subpersonal in the theory of mind debate. Phenomena Cognitive Science 17: 305–324. Scholar
  45. Nagy, E., and P. Molnár. 2004. Homo imitans or Homo provocans? Human imprinting model of neonatal imitation. Infant Behaviour and Development 27 (1): 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagel, Th. 1998. Concealment and exposure. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27 (1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nichols, S., and S. Stich. 2003. Mindreading. An integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding of other minds. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pacherie, Elisabeth. 2013. Intentional joint agency: shared intention lite. Synthese 190 (10): 1817–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paternotte, Cédric. "Constraints on joint action." In: Perspectives on social ontology and social cognition, eds. Mattia Gallotti and John Michael, Springer Netherlands, 2014. 103–123.Google Scholar
  50. Peacocke, C. 2005. Joint attention: Its nature, reflectivity, and connection to common knowledge. In Joint attention: Communication and other minds, ed. J. Heal, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, and J. Roessler, 298–324. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riedl, K., K. Jensen, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2015. Restorative justice in children. Current Biology 25: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rochat, P., J.G. Querido, and T. Striano. 1999. Emerging sensitivity to the timing and structure of Protoconversation in early infancy. Developmental Psychology 35 (4): 950–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rochat, P., M.D.G. Dias, G. Liping, T. Broesch, C. Passos-Ferreira, A. Winning, and B. Berg. 2009. Fairness in distributive justice by 3- and 5-year-olds across seven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 40: 416–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schein, C., and C. Gray. 2015 Aug. 2015 the unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (8): 1147–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schiffer, Stephen. 1988. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schmidt, M.F.H., and J.A. Sommerville. 2011. Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PLoS One 6: 1–7.Google Scholar
  57. Sloane, S., R. Baillargeon, and D. Premack. 2012. Do infants have a sense of fairness? Psychological Science 23: 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, C.E., P.R. Blake, and P.L. Harris. 2013. I should but I won’t: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS One 8: e59510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, C.E., and F. Warneken. 2016. Children’s reasoning about distributive and retributive justice across development. Developmental Psychology 52 (4): 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tollefsen, D. 2005. Let’s pretend!: Children and joint action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (1): 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tomasello, M. 2009. Why we cooperate, –Boston review book/MIT Press. Boston.Google Scholar
  62. Tomasello, M. 2014. A natural history of human thinking. Harvard: Harvard U. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tronick, E., H. Als, L. Adamson, S. Wise, and T.B. Brazelton. 1978. Infants response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 17: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tronick, E.Z., N. Brushweller-Stern, A.M. Harrison, K. Lyons-Ruth, A.C. Morgan, J.P. Nahum, et al. 1998. Dyadically expanded states of consciousness and the process of therapeutic change. Infant Mental Health Journal 19: 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trevarthen, C. 1979. Communication and cooperation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity. In Before Speech: the beginning of interpersonal communication, ed. M. Bullowa, 321–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Trevarthen, C. 2011. What is it like to be a person who knows nothing? Defining the active intersubjective mind of a newborn human being. Infant and Child Development 20: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turiel, E. 1983. The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Vaish, A., M. Carpenter, and M. Tomasello. 2010. Young children selectively avoid helping people with harmful intentions. Child Development 81 (6): 1661–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vaish, A., M. Missana, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Three-year-old children intervene in third-party moral transgressions. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29: 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vesper, C., S. Butterfill, N. Sebanz, and G. Knoblich. 2010. A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks 23 (8/9): 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warneken, F., F. Chen, and M. Tomasello. 2006. Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development 77: 640–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentNational University of ColombiaBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentUniversidad Externado de ColombiaBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations