Shared intention and personal intentions
Open accessAbstract
This article explores the question: what is it for two or more people to intend to do something in the future? In a technical phrase, what is it for people to share an intention ? Extending and refining earlier work of the author’s, it argues for three criteria of adequacy for an account of shared intention (the disjunction, concurrence, and obligation criteria) and offers an account that satisfies them. According to this account, in technical terms explained in the paper, people share an intention when and only when they are jointly committed to intend as a body to do such-and-such in the future. This account is compared and contrasted with the common approach that treats shared intention as a matter of personal intentions, with particular reference to the work of Michael Bratman.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
On Gilbert's account, when parties jointly commit themselves to a shared belief or intention, they must see to it as far as possible to emulate, by virtue of the actions of each, a single body that intends to do the thing in question.
“when parties jointly commit themselves to a shared belief or intention, they must see to it “as far as possible to emulate, by virtue of the actions of each, a single body that intends to do the thing in question” (Gilbert, 2009, p. 180).”
From Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation (2017) · cites this paper as Gilbert, 2009
Section 6 (cited p. 180) uses the quoted formulation for a joint commitment to intend as a body. It separately describes a joint commitment to believe as a body, but does not say that a shared belief requires emulating a body that intends to do something. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn contrast to personal commitments, none of the parties can suspend the normative force of a joint commitment individually or separately, but only through joint deliberation.
“The central idea is that in sharp contrast to personal commitments none of the parties can suspend the normative force of the commitment thus created individually or separately but, rather, precisely only through joint deliberation.”
From Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation (2017) · cites this paper as Gilbert, 2009
Section 5 (“The concurrence criterion,” page unavailable) contrasts personal intentions, which one can rescind unilaterally, with shared intentions, which one cannot unilaterally rescind. Section 8 (“Implications of the account,” page unavailable) says altering or rescinding a joint commitment requires the other parties’ concurrence absent special background understandings. It does not require joint deliberation specifically, and the claim omits that exception. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 335
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Bratman, M. (1999). Faces of intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gilbert, M. (1997). What is it for Us to Intend? In G. Holmstrom-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary action theory, (Vol. 2, pp. 65-85). Dordrecht. (Reprinted in Gilbert (2000)).
- Gilbert, M. (2003). The structure of the social atom: Joint commitment as the foundation of human social behavior. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing metaphysics (pp. 39-64).
- Authors
- Gilbert, M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gilbert, Margaret
- ORCID
- Gilbert, Margaret
- Venue
- Philosophical Studies
- Published
- 2009-04-07
- Volume
- 144
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 167-187
- ISSN
- 0031-8116 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0883
- OpenAlex
- W2115050393
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 46.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Philosophical Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- shared intentionality, Michael Bratman, joint commitment, future action, collective intentionality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
