Abstract There is disagreement among philosophers about the following claim: when we share an intention to perform some action, we each have an intention towards that action. That disagreement turns on the interpretation of thought experiments, specifically whether reports of a shared intention are accurate in cases in which one of the participants lacks a participatory intention. We subject the standard interpretations of thought experiments to empirical testing. Our results suggest that attributions of shared intentions are appropriate only when each individual has a participatory intention, supporting accounts of shared intention that include participatory intentions as a necessary component.