The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Two Approaches to Shared Intention: An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena
Open accessAbstract
Drawing on earlier work of the author that is both clarified and amplified here, this article explores the question: what is it for two or more people to intend to do something in the future? In short, what is it for people to share an intention? 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 the correlative personal intentions, with particular reference to the work of Michael Bratman.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“On her account, two or more agents have a shared intention, only if the agents undertake normative commitments that oblige them to certain sorts of performances and, hence, entitle the others to those performances.”
From Instrumental Robots. (2020) · cites this paper as Gilbert 2008
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“However, this objection can be dealt with within the framework on offer, by drawing on the kinds of considerations that are relevant when responsibility is grounded in instrument use.”
From Instrumental Robots. (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
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.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilbert, M.
- Corresponding author
- Gilbert, Margaret
- ORCID
- Gilbert, Margaret
- Venue
- Analyse & Kritik
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2008-11-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 483-514
- ISSN
- 0171-5860 (ISSN-L)
- 2365-9858
- OpenAlex
- W2396679916
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 29 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Analyse & Kritik (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
- Keywords
- shared intentionality, Michael Bratman, joint commitment, collective action
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Two Approaches to Shared Intention: An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/auk-2008-0208
- The paper
- Gilbert, M. (2008). Two Approaches to Shared Intention: An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena. Analyse & Kritik. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2008-0208
