Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation

Political Psychology

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 243-258

  Mercier, Hugo ^a   Landemore, Hélène ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Deliberation; Deliberative democracy; Group decision making; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859148096     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme, 3, 8-22.
2. Aristotle. (1991). On Rhetoric: a Theory of Civic Discourse. Translation by George A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Arkes, H. R., Guilmette, T. J., Faust, D., & Hart, K. (1988). Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 305-307.
4. Bainbridge, S. M. (2002). Why a board? Group decisionmaking in corporate governance. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55, 1-55.
5. Barabas, J. (2000, April). Uncertainty and ambivalence in deliberative opinion models: Citizens in the Americans Discuss Social Security Forum. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
6. Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219-253.
7. Bohman, J. (2007). Political communication and the epistemic value of diversity: Deliberation and legitimation in media societies. Communication Theory, 17, 348-355.
8. Boudreau, C., & McCubbins, M. D. (2007, May). From competition to competence? Theory and experiments regarding deliberation, expertise, and decision making. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, New York, NY.
9. Callon, M., Lascousmes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97, 26-38.
11. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays in reason and politics (pp. 67-92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (1998). Deliberative democracy in action: Evaluation of Americans Discuss Social Security. Washington DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
13. Davies, M. F. (1992). Field dependence and hindsight bias: Cognitive restructuring and the generation of reasons. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 58-74.
14. Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 282-309). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
15. Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review in Political Science, 7, 315-344.
16. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
17. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
18. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 634-649.
19. Elster, J. (1997). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 3-34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Elster, J. (2007). Explaining social behavior: More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Estlund, D. (1998). The insularity of the reasonable: Why political liberalism must admit the truth. Ethics, 108, 252-275.
22. Estlund, D. (2007). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). In two minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284-298.
25. Fishkin, J. S., Luskin, R. C., O'Flynn, I., & Russell, D. (2009). Deliberating across deep divides. Unpublished research paper, Stanford University.
26. Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., & Weiser, P. (2008). Civic awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. Journal of Politics, 64, 585-595.
27. Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16, 3-23.
28. Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29, 81-109.
29. Goodin, R. E., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2003). When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51, 627-649.
30. Griffin, D. W., & Dunning, D. (1990). The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personality, 59, 1128-1139.
31. Griffiths, P. E. (1993). Functional analysis and proper functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44, 409.
32. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Habermas, J. (1997). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 55-66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Hansen, K. M. (2003). Deliberative democracy and opinion formation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern Denmark.
35. Hirt, E. R., & Markman, K. D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1069-1086.
36. Hoch, S. J. (1985). Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 719-731.
37. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 163-185.
38. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.
39. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd Rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
41. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
42. Kerr, N. L., Maccoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgement: comparing individuals and groups. Psychological review, 103, 687-719.
43. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623-655.
44. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1966). Modification of a judgmental style through group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 165-174.
45. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory and Cognition, 6, 107-118.
46. Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation? In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (2nd ed., pp. 390-402). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
47. Landemore, H. (2007). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.
48. Landemore, H. (In press). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective intelligence in politics. In H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective wisdom.
49. Landemore, H., & Mercier, H. (submitted). "Talking it out": Deliberation with others versus deliberation within.
50. Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605-620.
51. Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.
52. Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion: Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 640-649.
53. Lindeman, M. (2002). Opinion quality and policy preferences in deliberative research. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics: Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (pp. 195-221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
54. Lupia, A. (2001). What we should know: Can ordinary citizens make extraordinary choices? Paper presented at the WCRA Conference on "Making Big Choices: Individual Opinion Formation and Societal Choice." from
55. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Hahn, K. S. (2007, August-September). Consensus and polarization in small group deliberations. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
56. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455-487.
57. Luskin, R. C., Iyengar, S., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Considered opinions on U.S. foreign policy: Face-to-face versus online deliberative polling. Unpublished research paper, Stanford University.
58. Mackie, G. (2006). Does democratic deliberation change minds? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 5, 279-303.
59. Manin, B. (2005, October). Deliberation: Why we should focus on debate rather than discussion. Paper presented at the Program in Ethics and Public Affairs Seminar, Princeton, NJ. Available at
60. Martí, J. L. (2006). The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. In S. Besson & J. L. Martí (Eds.), Democracy and its discontents: National and post-national challenges (pp. 27-56). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
61. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151-193.
62. Mendelberg, T., & Karpowitz, C. (2000, August-September). Deliberating about justice. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
63. Mendelberg, T., & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and public deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 169-191.
64. Mercier, H. (in press). Our pigheaded core: How we became smarter to be influenced by other people. In B. Calcott, R. Joyce, & K. Sterelny (Eds.), Evolution, cooperation, and complexity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Mercier, H. (2011a). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26, 177-191.
66. Mercier, H. (2011b). What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society, 10, 131-148.
67. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2009). Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds (pp. 149-170). New York: Oxford University Press.
68. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-74.
69. Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 834-839.
70. Millikan, R. G. (1987). Language, though and other categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Millikan, R. G. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 231-248.
73. Muhlberger, P., & Weber, L. M. (2006). Lessons from the Virtual Agora project: The effects of agency, identity, information, and deliberation on political knowledge. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2, 1-37.
74. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23.
75. Mutz, D. C. (2004). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126.
76. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
77. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: An ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
78. Niemeyer, S. J., & Dryzek, J. S. (2007). The ends of deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13, 497-526.
79. Novaes, C. D. (2005). Medieval obligationes as logical games of consistency maintenance. Synthese, 145, 371-395.
80. Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of divesrity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81. Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
82. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
83. Raz, J. (1990). Facing diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19, 3-46.
84. Ritchart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775-802). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. Schneiderhan, E., & Khan, S. (2008). Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation. Sociological Theory, 26, 1-24.
86. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus. The Academy of Management Journal, 29, 51-71.
87. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
88. Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 43, 1-28.
89. Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
90. Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 117-137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
91. Sperber, D. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics, 29, 401-413.
92. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359-393.
93. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
94. Steenbergen, M. R., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48.
95. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175-195.
96. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
97. Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
98. Talisse, R. (2009). Democracy and moral conflict. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
99. Tesser, A. (1976). Attitude polarization as a function of thought and reality constraints. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 183-194.
100. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289-338). New York: Academic Press.
101. Thagard, P. (2005). Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis, 63, 295-316.
102. Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520.
103. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410-433.
104. Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872-885.
105. Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779-795.
106. Watson, W. E., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 803-809.
107. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.
108. Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109, 21-32.
109. Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W., & Shinotsuka, H. (1992, November). Cross-national variation in probability judgment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, MO.