Being one of us. Group identification, joint actions, and collective intentionality

References

• Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 47–65). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pellettier, J., & Ferrell, J. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80–1, 224–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacharach, M. (2006). In N. Gold & R. Sugden (Eds.), Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, T., & Fernandez, J. (2009). Delusion and self-deception: Mapping the terrain. In T. Bayne & J. Fernandez (Eds.), Delusion and self-deception: Affective and motivational influences on belief formation (pp. 1–21). Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, T. (2010). Agentive experiences as Pushmi-pullyu representations. In A. Buckareff, J. Aguilar, & K. Frankish (Eds.), New waves in the philosophy of action (pp. 219–236). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, T., & Hattiangadi, A. (2013). Belief and its bedfellows. In N. Nottelman (Ed.), New essays on belief: Constitution, content and structure (pp. 124–144). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, M., & Sani, F. (2008). Children’s subjective identification with social groups. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 19–31). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Blomberg, O. (2016). Common knowledge and reductionism about shared agency. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(2), 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. (1993). Shared Intention. Ethics, 104, 97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. (2014). Shared agency. A planning theory of acting together. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bullettin, 17(5), 475-482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownell, C. A. (2011). Early developments in joint action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 193–211.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buttelmann, D., Daum, M., Zmyj, N., & Carpenter, M. (2013). Selective imitation of in-group over out-group members in 14-month-old infants. Child Development, 84–2, 422–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterfill, S. (2012). Joint action and development. The Philosophical Quarterly, 62–246, 23–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. (2012). An object-dependent perspective on joint attention. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint ATtention. New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind and social neuroscience (pp. 415–430). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, M., & Liebal, K. (2012). Joint attention, communication, and knowing together in infancy. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention. New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind and social neuroscience (pp. 159–182). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chudnoff, E. (2013). Intuition. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, G., & Ichino, A. (2012). Aliefs don’t exist, though some of their relatives do. Analysis, 72–4, 788–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. (2001). Essays on actions and events (Second ed.). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Dunham, Y., & Emory, J. (2014). Of affect and ambiguity: The emergence of preference for arbitrary ingroups. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 81–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eilan, N. (2005). Joint attention, communication, and mind. In N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds. Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 1–33). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiebich, A., & Gallagher, S. (2012). Joint attention in joint action. Philosophical Psychology, 26–4, 571–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68–1, 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gendler, T. S. (2008). Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105–10, 634–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gendler, T. S. (2012). Between reason and reflex: Response to commentators. Analysis, 72–4, 799–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. (1990). Walking together: A paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. (1997). What is it for us to intend? In G. Holmström-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary action theory (Vol. II, pp. 65–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Glenda Satne, Alessandro Salice, 2020. Shared Intentionality and the Cooperative Evolutionary Hypothesis. In A. Fiebich (ed.) Minimal Cooperation and Shared Agency, Dordrecht: Springer
   Google Scholar
• Gold, N., & Sugden, B. (2007). Collective intentions and team agency. The Journal of Philosophy, 104–3, 109–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldie, P. (2000). The emotions. A philosophical exploration. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Goldie, P. (2011). Anti-empathy. In A. Coplan & P. Goldie (Eds.), Empathy. Philosophical and psychological perspectives (pp. 302–317). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Hakli, R., Miller, K., & Tuomela, R. (2010). Two kinds of team reasoning. Economics and Philosophy, 26, 291–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, A. M. E., Wang, Y., Matz, L. E., & Woodward, A. L. (2013). Active experience shapes 10-month-old infants’ understanding of collaborative goals. Infancy, 18, 10–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson, R. P., & Hobson, J. (2011). Joint attention or joint engagement? Insights from autism. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 115–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). Children’s selective trust in native-accented speakers. Developmental Science, 14–1, 106–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, C. (2014). Three kinds of collective attitudes. Erkenntnis, 79, 1601–1622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency. The possibility, design and status of corporate agents. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Low, J., & Perner, J. (eds). (2012). Implicit and explicit theory of mind. Special issue. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 30(1), 30–31.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig, K. (2016). From individual to plural agency. Collective action: Volume I. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Makela, P., & Miller, S. (2005). The collectivist approach to collective moral responsibility. Metaphilosophy, 36–5, 634–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. (2001). Social action. A teleological account. Cambridge: CUP.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. (1989). Biosemantics. The Journal of Philosophy, 86–6, 281–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of meaning: The 2002 Jean Nicod lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A biological model. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. (2013). Intentional joint agency: Shared intention lite. Synthese, 190, 1817–1839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersson, B. (2017). Team reasoning and collective intentionality. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8, 199–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettit, P., & Schweikard, D. (2006). Joint actions and group agents. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36–1, 18–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakoczy, H. (2015). In defense of a developmental dogma: Children acquire propositional attitude folk psychology around age 4. Synthese, 194–3, 689–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, D. (2014). Philosophy of economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rovane, C. (2017). Is group agency a social phenomenon? Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1384-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio-Fernández, P., & Geurts, B. (2013). How to pass the false-belief task before your fourth birthday. Psychological Science, 24–1, 27–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruble, D., Alvarez, J., Bachman, M., Cameron, J., Fuligni, A., García Coll, C., & Rhee, E. (2004). The development of a sense of “we”: The emergence and implications of children’s collective identity. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 29–76). New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, M. F. H., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator’s group affiliation. Cognition, 124, 325–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweikard, D. P., & Schmid, H. B. (2013). Collective intentionality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/collective-intentionality
   Google Scholar
• Seemann, A. (2007). Joint attention, collective knowledge, and the “we” perspective. Social Epistemology, 21–3, 217–230.
   Google Scholar
• Szigeti, A. (2013). Are individualist accounts of collective responsibility morally deficient? In A. Konzelmann-Ziv, H. B. Schmid (eds.). In Institutions, emotions, and group agents (pp. 329–342). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Szigeti, A. (2014). Why change the subject? On collective epistemic agency. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6–4, 843–864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson- Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, S. (2006). Direction of fit and motivational cognitivism. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (pp. 235–264). Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Tollefsen, D. (2002). Collective intentionality and the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32–1, 25–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollefsen, D. (2005). Let’s pretend! Children and joint action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 35–1, 75–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuomela, R. (2007). Philosophy of sociality. The shared point of view. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Tuomela, R. (2013). Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15–40.
   Google Scholar
• Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development, 77–3, 640–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warneken, F., Gräfenhain, M., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Collaborative partner or social tool? New evidence for young children’s understanding of joint intentions in collaborative activities. Developmental Science, 15–1, 54–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11(3), 271–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, H., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false-belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahavi, D. (2015). You, me, and we: The sharing of emotional experiences. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22(1–2), 84–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahavi, D., & Rochat, P. (2015). Empathy ≠ sharing: Perspectives from phenomenology and developmental psychology. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 543–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar