Grounding We-Intentions In Individual Social Attitudes

  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 321)


Especially after Raimo Tuomela’s influential work there is now a general agreement, both in AI and in philosophy, on the idea that to model and formalise cooperation it is necessary to model the minds of the involved agents.2 I think that this is a fundamental result. However, a collective activity is mainly accounted for in terms of the beliefs of the agents involved about each other and the joint plan. I think that this approach is not sufficient to account for a group or a truly cooperative work because a much richer representation of the individual social mind is needed (Conte and Castelfranchi, 1995). In fact those models provide a limited account of the individual mental states and social attitudes in cooperation. First, — as I will argue — one should explicitly model not only the beliefs about others’ intentions and shares, but also the goals about the actions and the intentions of the others (Grosz and Kraus, 1996): each member not only expects but wishes or wants that the others do their job (Castelfranchi and Falcone, 1998). And conversely one should model the social commitment to the others also in terms of delegation of goals/task and of compliance with the others’ expectations: i.e. as goal-adoption (Castelfranchi, 1991 and Castelfranchi, 1995). Those attitudes are not specific of joint intentions, they can be individual social attitudes and can be unilateral.


Multiagent System Shared Intention Collective Goal Social Commitment Mental 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., E. Salas, and S. Converse: 1993, ‘Shared mental models in expert team decision making’, in M.J. Castellan (ed.), Individual and group decision making, Hillsdale, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Castelfranchi, C.: 1998, ‘Modelling Social Action for AI Agents’, Artificial Intelligence 103, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castelfranchi, C.: 1991, ‘Social Power: a missed point in DAI, MA and HCF’, in Y. Demazeau & J.P. Mueller (eds.) Decentralized AI, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 49–62.Google Scholar
  4. Castelfranchi, C.: 1997, ‘Principles of Individual Social Action’, in R. Tuomela and G. Hintikka (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Castelfranchi, C.: 1995, ‘Commitment: from intentions to groups and organizations’, in Proceedings of ICMAS’95, S.Francisco, AAAI-MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi, C. and R. Falcone: 1994, ‘Towards a theory of single-agent into multi-agent plan transformation’, The 3rd Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, 16–18 agosto.Google Scholar
  7. Castelfranchi, C. and R. Falcone: 1998, ‘Towards a Theory of Delegation for Agent-based Systems’, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Special issue on Multi-Agent Rationality, Elsevier Editor. Vol 24, Nos 3-4, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castelfranchi, C. and R. Falcone: 1999, ‘Basic mental attitudes of a collaborating agent: Cognitive primitives for MAS’, in Proceedings of MAMAW’99, Valencia.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P.R. and H. J. Levesque: 1990, ‘Intention is choise with Commitment’, Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conte, R. and C. Castelfranchi: 1995, Cognitive and Social Action, UCL Press, London.Google Scholar
  11. Conte, R., M. Miceli, and C. Castelfranchi: 1991, ‘Limits and levels of cooperation. Disentangling various types of prosocial interaction’, in Y. Demazeau and J.P. Mueller (eds.), Decentralized AI-2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 147–157.Google Scholar
  12. Demazeau, Y. and J. P. Mueller (eds.): 1990, Decentralized AI, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Durfee, E. H., V. R. Lesser, and D. D. Corkill: 1987, ‘Cooperation through communication in a problem-solving network’, in M. N. Huhns (ed.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 29–58.Google Scholar
  14. Falcone, R. and C. Castelfranchi: 1996, ‘Plan Recognition: from Single-Agent to Multi-Agent plans’, in J. Perram and J. P. Muller (eds.), Distributed Software Agents and Applications, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag pp. 166–178.Google Scholar
  15. Ferber, J.: 1995, Les Systemes Multi-Agents, InterEditions, Paris, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. Gasser, L.: 1991, ‘Social conceptions of knowledge and action: DAI foundations and open systems semantics’, Artificial Intelligence 47, 107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, M.: 1999, ‘What is it for us to intend?’, invited talck, Munich, June 1999.Google Scholar
  18. Grosz, B.: 1996, ‘Collaborative Systems’, AI Magazine (summer 1996), 67–85.Google Scholar
  19. Grosz B. and S. Kraus: 1996, ‘Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action’, Artificial Intelligence 86, 269–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grosz B., and S. Sidner: 1996, ‘Plans for Discourse’, in P. Cohen, J. L. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Jennings, N. R.: 1993, ‘Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems’, The Knowledge Engineering Review 3, 223–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haddadi, A.: 1996, Communication and Cooperation in Agent Systems, The Springer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levesque, H. J., P.R. Cohen, and J. H. T. Nunes: 1990, ‘On acting together’, in Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Kaufmann, San Marco, California, 94–100.Google Scholar
  24. Malone, T. W., R. E. Fikes, and M. T. Howard: 1988, ‘Enterpise: a market-like task scheduler for distributed computing environments’, in B. A. Huberman (ed.), The Ecology of Computation, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 177–205.Google Scholar
  25. Miceli, M., A. Cesta, and P. Rizzo: 1995, ‘Distributed Artificial Intelligence from a socio-cognitive standpoint: Looking at reasons for interaction’,. AI & Society 9, 287–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Hare, G. and N. Jennings: 1996, Foundations of distributed Artificial Intelligence, Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Pollack, M.: 1990, ‘Plans as complex mental attitudes’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
  28. Rao, A. S., M. P. Georgeff, and E. A. Sonenberg: 1992, ‘Social plans: A preliminary report’, in E. Werner & Y, Demazeau (eds.), Decentralized AI — 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 57–77.Google Scholar
  29. Searle, J.R.: 1990, ‘Collective Intentions and Actions’, in P. Cohen, J. L. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Chapter 19.Google Scholar
  30. Sichman, J, R., R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi, and Y. Demazeau: 1994, ‘A social reasoning mechanism based on dependence networks’, in Proceedings of the 11th ECAI.Google Scholar
  31. Singh, M. P.: 1995, ‘Multiagent Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Intentions, Know-how, and Communications’, Springer Verlag, LNCS, volume 799.Google Scholar
  32. Tuomela, R.: 1984, A Theory of Social Action, Reidel Pub., Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tuomela, R.: 1998, Collective And Joint Intention (Forthcoming in the proceedings of the Rosselli Foundation conference “Cognitive Theory of Social Action” held in Turin, June 1998)Google Scholar
  34. Tuomela, R. and M. Bonnevier-Tuomela: 1997, ‘From Social Imitation to Teamwork’, in G. Holmstrom-Hintikka and R. Tuomela (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory. Vol. II: Social Action. Kluwer, Boston.Google Scholar
  35. Tuomela, R. and K. Miller: 1988, ‘We-Intentions’, Philosophical Studies 53, 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Martial, F.: 1992, ‘Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents’, LNAI 610, Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Weiss, G. and S. Sen (eds.): 1998, Multi Agent Systems — A modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. AAAI/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Werner, E.: 1989, ‘Cooperating agents: A unified theory of communication and social structure’, in M. Huhns and L. Gasser (eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence, Vol. 2, Kaufmann and Pitman, London, 3–36.Google Scholar
  39. Werner, E.: 1990, ‘What can agents do together? A semantics for reasoning about cooperative ability’, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  40. Wooldridge M. and N. Jennings: 1994, ‘Formalizing the cooperative problem solving process’, in Proceedings 13th International Workshop on Distributed Intelligence, Lake Quinalt, WA, pp. 403–417.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive and Interaction ModellingCNR — Institute of PsychologyItaly

Personalised recommendations