Affordances and the Sense of Joint Agency

  • Jérôme Dokic


All of us are aware when we are doing something. We have a sense of our own agency. We can also be aware that another agent is doing something. Thus, we have a sense of the other’s own agency. The relationship between these two types of awareness of action is the subject of intense debates in the philosophy of mind and in cognitive science. Some authors argue that our awareness that we are doing something ourselves is in fact complex. It involves the sense of agency; we are aware of a bodily action in contrast to a mere passive movement. For instance, I am aware that I am slapping my hand on the desk, and not merely that my hand is slapping the desk (perhaps as the result of a reflex, or an external manipulation). But it also involves a different sense, of being the author of the action; we are aware that we ourselves are doing something, in contrast to another agent.


Joint Action Mirror Neuron Biological Motion Social Perception Joint Agency 
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. 1.
    Dokic J (2003) The sense of ownership: an analogy between sensation and action. In: Roessler J, Eilan N (eds) Agency and self-awareness. Issues in philosophy and psychology. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeannerod M, Pacherie E (2004) Agency, simulation and self-identification. Mind and Language 19:113–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Premack D, Woodruff G (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1:515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perner J (1996) Simulation as explicitation of predication-implicit knowledge about the mind: arguments for a simulation-theory mix. In: Carruthers C, Smith PK (eds) Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baron-Cohen S, Leslie A, Frith U (1985) Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 21:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leslie A (1987) Pretence and representation: the origins of a “theory of mind.” Psychol Rev 94:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldman AI (2006) Simulating minds. The philosophy, psychology and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conein B (2006) Les sens sociaux. Trois essais de sociologie cognitive. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allison T, Puce A, McCarthy G (2000) Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region. Trends Cogn Sci 1:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacob P, Jeannerod M (2003) Ways of seeing. The scope and limits of visual cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perrett DI, Smith PAJ, Potter DD et al (1985) Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proc R Soc London B 223:293–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perrett DI (1999) A cellular basis for reading minds from faces and actions. In: Hauser M, Konishi M (eds) Neural mechanisms of communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallagher S (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behav Brain Sci 31:109–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw RE, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (Original work published 1979)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bermúdez J (1998) The paradox of self-consciousness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell J (2002) Reference and consciousness. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lhermitte F (1983) “Utilization behaviour” and its relation to lesions of the frontal cortex. Brain 106:237–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marcel T (2003) The sense of agency: awareness and ownership of action. In: Roessler J, Eilan N (eds) Agency and self-awareness. Issues in philosophy and psychology. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rizzolatti G, Carmada R, Gentilucci M et al (1988) Functional organization of area 6 in the macaque monkey. II Area F5 and the control of distal movements. Exp Brain Res 71:491–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miall RC (2003) Connecting mirror neurons and forward models. Neuro Report 14:2135–2137Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hurley S (2006) Active perception and perceiving action: the shared circuits model. In: Gendler TS, Hawthorne J (eds) Perceptual experience. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stoffregen TA, Gorday KM, Sheng YY et al (1999) Perceiving affordances for another person’s actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:120–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perry J (1993) Thought without representation. In: The problem of the essential indexical, and other essays. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Matelli M et al (1996) Localization of grasp representations in humans by PET. 1. Observation versus execution. Exp Brain Res 111:246–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:661–670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gallese V, Goldman AI (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn Sci 12:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallese V (2003) The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: the quest for a common mechanism. Phil Trans Royal Soc London B 358:517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gallese V, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G (2004) A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 8:396–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Csibra G (2009) Action mirroring and action understanding: an alternative account. In: Haggard P, Rosetti Y, Kawato M (eds) Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition. Attention and Performance XXII. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B et al (2005) Parietal lobe: from action organisation to intention understanding. Science 308:662–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knoblich G, Jordan JS (2002) The mirror system and joint action. In: Stamenov MI, Gallese V (eds) Mirror neurons and the evolution of brain and language. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pacherie E, Dokic J (2006) From mirror neurons to joint actions. Cogn Sys Res 7:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacob P, Jeannerod M (2005) The motor theory of social cognition: a critique. Trends Cogn Sci 9:21–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richardson MJ, Marsh KL, Baron RM (2007) Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:845–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marsh KL, Richardson MJ, Baron RM et al (2006) Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecol Psychol 18:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bratman ME (1999) Faces of intention. Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Call J et al (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav Brain Sci 28:675–735PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baier AC (1997) Doing things with others: the mental commons. In: Alanen L, Heinämaa S, Wallgren T (eds) Commonality and particularity in ethics. Open Court, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stoutland F (1997) Why are philosophers of action so anti-social? In: Alanen L, Heinämaa S, Wallgreen T (eds) Commonality and particularity in ethics. Open Court, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Velleman D (1997) How to share an intention. Phil Phenom Res 62:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Livet P (1994) La communauté virtuelle. Éditions de l’Éclat, CombasGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G (2006) Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cogn Sci 10:70–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Dokic
    • 1
  1. 1.École des Hautes Études en SciencesSociales & Institut Jean-NicodParisFrance

Personalised recommendations