Group Agency
Abstract
Are companies, churches, and states genuine agents? How do we explain their behaviour? Can we treat them as accountable for their actions? List and Pettit offer arguments, grounded in work on social choice, economics, and philosophy, to show there really are group agents, over and above the individual agents who compose them.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The emergence of co-operative agency patterns, when supported by action coordination mechanisms, invites consideration of human-AI dyads through group agency.
“The emergence of co-operative agency patterns (Section 5.1), particularly when supported by mechanisms enabling 'Action Coordination' (Section 6), invites consideration of human-AI dyads through the lens of group agency [103].”
From Exploring Collaboration Patterns and Strategies in Human-AI Co-creation through the Lens of Agency: A Scoping Review of the Top-tier HCI Literature (2025) · cites this paper as [103]
Current AI (automated systems built with machine learning) are agents.
“This paper simply grants that such systems are agents.”
From Instrumental Robots. (2020) · cites this paper as List and Pettit 2011
A system plausibly has states playing the causal-functional role of intentions if it has representational states, motivational states, and the capacity to process them so as to intervene suitably in the environment.
“A system plausibly has such states if it has (List and Pettit 2011: 20): (1) “representational states that depict how things are in the environment,” (2) “motivational states that specify how it requires things to be in the environment,” and (3) “the capacity to process its representational and motivational states, leading it to intervene suitably in the environment whenever that environment fails”
From Instrumental Robots. (2020) · cites this paper as List and Pettit 2011
The international community is increasingly converging on a set of principles, such as jus cogens and human rights, constituting a common ground on the basis of which decisions about international political morality have to be made.
“This form of pluralism-driven scepticism appears all the less well-founded at a time when the international community is increasingly converging on a set of principles, such as jus cogens and human rights, constituting a common ground on the basis of which decisions about international political morality have to be made.”
From No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique (2014) · cites this paper as [90]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nguyen, C. T. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190052089.001.0001 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Robots, law and the retribution gap
Danaher, J. (2016) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9403-3 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
From individual to group privacy in big data analytics
Mittelstadt, B. (2017) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0253-7 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique
Valentini, L. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714002138 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
The Metaphysics of Social Groups
Ritchie, K. (2015) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12213 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
How Society Can Maintain Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence
Bryson, J. J., & Theodorou, A. (2019) · Translational Systems Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7725-9_16 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Understanding artificial agency
Dung, L. (2025) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqae010 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
An Ethical Analysis of Emotional Labor
Barry, B., Olekalns, M., & Rees, L. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3906-2 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
The multiple, interacting levels of cognitive systems (MILCS) perspective on group cognition
Goldstone, R. L., & Theiner, G. (2017) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2017.1295635 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Discourse ethics for computer ethics: A heuristic for engaged dialogical reflection
Rehg, W. (2015) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-014-9359-0 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Köhler, S. (2020) · Science and engineering ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00259-5 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Skilled we-intentionality: Situating joint action in the living environment
Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2021) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.13411.2 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation
Szanto, T. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02002 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“…of collective agency and emotions, there is already a large body of literature in philosophy that may path the way to move ahead in this direction (e.g., Schmid, 2009; List and Pettit, 2011; von Scheve and Salmela, 2014; Szanto, 2015, 2016, 2017; Tollefsen, 2015; León et al., under review).”
BackgroundModeling how false beliefs spread
O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2021) · The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology · doi:10.4324/9780429326769-25 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- List, C., & Pettit, P.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2011-04-01
- OpenAlex
- W4252316183
- Semantic Scholar
- 38f4a03c52e1e95f2a6567a81b85a4ce26ff12c0
- Cited by
- 1,344
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 123 · 2025: 147 · 2024: 160 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 148 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 50.96
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- collective agency, corporate agents, collective responsibility, moral agency, social choice, political philosophy, law and morality
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