On collective intentions: collective action in economics and philosophy

Philosophers and economists write about collective action from distinct but related points of view. This paper aims to bridge these perspectives. Economists have been concerned with rationality in a strategic context. There, problems posed by “coordination games” seem to point to a form of rational action, “team thinking,” which is not individualistic. Philosophers’ analyses of collective intention, however, sometimes reduce collective action to a set of individually instrumental actions. They do not, therefore, capture the first person plural perspective characteristic of team thinking. Other analyses, problematically, depict intentions ranging over others’ actions. I offer an analysis of collective intention which avoids these problems. A collective intention aims only at causing an individual action, but its propositional content stipulates its mirroring in other minds.

Contribution to collective harms and responsibility

In the present contribution, I discuss the claim, endorsed by a number of authors, that contributing to a collective harm is the ground for special responsibilities to the victims of that harm. Contributors should, between them, cover the costs of the harms they have inflicted, at least if those harms would otherwise be rights-violating. I raise some doubts about the generality of this principle before moving on to sketch a framework for thinking about liability for the costs of harms in general. This framework uses a contractualist framework to build an account of how to think about liability for costs on the basis of the presumably attractive thought that individual agents should have as much control over their liabilities as is compatible with others having like control. I then use that framework to suggest that liability on the basis of contribution should be restricted to cases in which the contributors could have avoided their contribution relatively costlessly, in which meeting the liability is not crippling for them, and in which such a liability would not have chilling effects, either on them or on third parties. This account of the grounds for contributory liability also has the advantage of avoiding a number of awkward questions about what counts as a contribution by shifting the issue away from often unanswerable questions about the precise causal genesis of some harm or other. Instead, control over conduct, which plausibly has some relation to the harm, becomes crucial. On the basis of this account, I then investigate whether a number of uses of the contributory principle are entirely appropriate. I argue that contributory liability is not appropriate for cases of collective harms committed by coordinated groups in the way that, for example, Iris Marion Young and Thomas Pogge have suggested and that further investigation of how members of such groups may be liable will be needed.

An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers

At present, collective action regarding bio-security among UK cattle and sheep farmers is rare. Despite the occurrence of catastrophic livestock diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and foot and mouth disease (FMD), within recent decades, there are few national or local farmer-led animal health schemes. To explore the reasons for this apparent lack of interest, we utilised a socio-psychological approach to disaggregate the cognitive, emotive and contextual factors driving bio-security behaviour among cattle and sheep farmers in the United Kingdom (UK). In total, we interviewed 121 farmers in South-West England and Wales. The main analytical tools included a content, cluster and logistic regression analysis. The results of the content analysis illustrated apparent 'dissonance' between bio-security attitudes and behaviour.(1) Despite the heavy toll animal disease has taken on the agricultural economy, most study participants were dismissive of the many measures associated with bio-security. Justification for this lack of interest was largely framed in relation to the collective attribution or blame for the disease threats themselves. Indeed, epidemic diseases were largely related to external actors and agents. Reasons for outbreaks included inadequate border control, in tandem with ineffective policies and regulations. Conversely, endemic livestock disease was viewed as a problem for 'bad' farmers and not an issue for those individuals who managed their stock well. As such, there was little utility in forming groups to address what was largely perceived as an individual problem. Further, we found that attitudes toward bio-security did not appear to be influenced by any particular source of information per se. While strong negative attitudes were found toward specific sources of bio-security information, e.g. government leaflets, these appear to simply reflect widely held beliefs. In relation to actual bio-security behaviours, the logistic regression analysis revealed no significant difference between in-scheme and out of scheme farmers. We concluded that in order to support collective action with regard to bio-security, messages need to be reframed and delivered from a neutral source. Efforts to support group formation must also recognise and address the issues relating to perceptions of social connectedness among the communities involved. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Age and flexible thinking: an experimental demonstration of the beneficial effects of increased cognitively stimulating activity on fluid intelligence in healthy older adults

The disuse hypothesis of cognitive aging attributes decrements in fluid intelligence in older adults to reduced cognitively stimulating activity. This study experimentally tested the hypothesis that a period of increased mentally stimulating activities thus would enhance older adults' fluid intelligence performance. Participants (N = 44, mean age 67.82) were administered pre- and post-test measures, including the fluid intelligence measure, Cattell's Culture Fair (CCF) test. Experimental participants engaged in diverse, novel, mentally stimulating activities for 10-12 weeks and were compared to a control condition. Results supported the hypothesis; the experimental group showed greater pre- to post-CCF gain than did controls (effect size d = 0.56), with a similar gain on a spatial-perceptual task (WAIS-R Blocks). Even brief periods of increased cognitive stimulation can improve older adults' problem solving and flexible thinking.

Effect of priming cooperation or individualism on a collective and interdependent task: changeover speed in the 4 x 100-meter relay race

Priming effects of cooperation vs. individualism were investigated on changeover speed within a 4 x 100-m relay race. Ten teams of four adult beginner athletes ran two relays, a pretest race and an experimental race 3 weeks later. Just before the experimental race, athletes were primed with either cooperation or individualism through a scrambled-sentence task. Comparing to the pretest performance, cooperation priming improved baton speed in the exchange zone (+30 cm/s). Individualism priming did not impair changeover performance. The boundary conditions of priming effects applied to collective and interdependent tasks are discussed within the implicit coordination framework.

Thinking skills in the early years: a literature review

Since 1999, thinking skills have been included in the National Curriculum alongside ‘key skills’ such as those to do with communication and information and communications technology (ICT). Thinking skills are expected to be developed at all key stages and centre on: information-processing skills, reasoning skills, enquiry skills, creative thinking skills and evaluation skills. This literature review consisted of three phases based on the following research questions: 1. What pedagogical approaches to developing generic thinking skills currently exist for children between the ages of three and seven? 2. What are the generic thinking skills that children are able to demonstrate at this age? 3. What is the relationship between these thinking capabilities and those that the pedagogical approaches aim to develop? The review covered post-2000 literature in the area of thinking skills in the early years. It provides an update of the evidence base upon which thinking skills approaches have been established, suggests areas where more evidence is needed and makes some practical recommendations for researchers, policy makers and practitioners.