The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 20, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 689-700

  Mercier, Hugo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

ARGUMENT EVALUATIONS; EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; NOCV1; REASONERS;

BIOLOGY;

PREDICTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PROBLEM SOLVING; THINKING;

COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PROBLEM SOLVING; THINKING;

EID: 84999779328     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: 1879307X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. 1 Stanovich, K.E., Rationality and the Reflective Mind. 2011, Oxford University Press.
2. 2 Kahneman, D., Thinking, Fast and Slow. 2011, Farrar Straus & Giroux.
3. 3 Varga, A., et al. There is no one logic to model human reasoning: the case from interpretation. In Bridging the Gap between Human and Automated Reasoning. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2015, 32–46.
4. 4 Oaksford, M., Hall, S., On the source of human irrationality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20 (2016), 336–344.
5. 5 Todd, P.M., Gigerenzer, G., Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. 2012, Oxford University Press.
6. 6 Shea, N., et al. Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18 (2014), 186–193.
7. 7 Bang, D., et al. What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition. Fleming, S.D., Frith, C.D., (eds.) The Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition, 2014, Springer, 189–221.
8. 8 Kurzban, R., Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind. 2012, Princeton University Press.
9. 9 Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. The Enigma of Reason, Harvard University Press (in press).
10. 10 Sperber, D., et al. Epistemic vigilance. Mind Lang. 25 (2010), 359–393.
11. 11 Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U., Simple Heuristics in a Social World. 2012, Oxford University Press.
12. 12 Tormala, Z.L., Briñol, P., Attitude change and persuasion: past, present and future directions. Norton, M.I., et al. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology, 2015, Cambridge University Press, 29–64.
13. 13 Mercier, H., Sperber, D., Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav. Brain Sci. 34 (2011), 57–74.
14. 14 Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychol. Rev. 114 (2007), 704–732.
15. 15 Oppenheimer, D.M., Kelso, E., Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66 (2015), 277–294.
16. 16 Mercier, H., et al. Why don't people produce better arguments?. Macchi, L., et al. (eds.) Cognitive Unconscious and Human Rationality, 2016, MIT Press, 205–218.
17. 17 Mercier, H. Confirmation (or myside) bias. In Cognitive Illusions (2nd edn) (Pohl, R., ed.), Psychology Press (in press).
18. 18 Leeper, T.J., Slothuus, R., Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Polit. Psychol. 35 (2014), 129–156.
19. 19 Kassin, S.M., et al. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2 (2013), 42–52.
20. 20 Yin, D., et al. Research note – when do consumers value positive vs negative reviews? An empirical investigation of confirmation bias in online word of mouth. Inf. Syst. Res. 27 (2016), 131–144.
21. 21 Knobloch-Westerwick, S., et al. Political online information searching in Germany and the United States: confirmation bias, source credibility, and attitude impacts. J. Commun. 65 (2015), 489–511.
22. 22 Park, J., et al. Information valuation and confirmation bias in virtual communities: evidence from stock message boards. Inf. Syst. Res. 24 (2013), 1050–1067.
23. 23 Windschitl, P.D., et al. Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120 (2013), 73–86.
24. 24 Trouche, E., et al. The selective laziness of reasoning. Cogn. Sci., 2015 Published online October 9, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12303.
25. 25 Trouche, E., et al. Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 (2014), 1958–1971.
26. 26 Wayne, C., et al. Rationalizing conflict: the polarizing role of accountability in ideological decision making. J. Confl. Resolut., 6, 2015 Published online January 6, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002714564431.
27. 27 Paharia, N., et al. Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 121 (2013), 81–88.
28. 28 Kahan, D.M., Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8 (2013), 407–424.
29. 29 Lodge, M., Taber, C.S., The Rationalizing Voter. 2013, Cambridge University Press.
30. 30 Felton, M., et al. Arguing to agree mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Writ. Commun. 32 (2015), 317–331.
31. 31 Crowell, A., Kuhn, D., Developing dialogic argumentation skills: a 3-year intervention study. J. Cogn. Dev. 15 (2014), 363–381.
32. 32 Kuhn, D., Crowell, A., Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychol. Sci. 22 (2011), 545–552.
33. 33 Li, S., et al. A test of “reason-based” and “reluctance-to-think” accounts of the disjunction effect. Inf. Sci. 184 (2012), 166–175.
34. 34 Thompson, D.V., Norton, M.I., The social utility of feature creep. J. Mark. Res. 48 (2011), 555–565.
35. 35 Ashby, N.J., et al. Focusing on what you own: biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgm. Decis. Mak., 7, 2012, 254.
36. 36 Appelt, K.C., et al. Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: a query theory account. J. Risk Uncertain. 43 (2011), 107–126.
37. 37 Nyhan, B., et al. The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med. Care 51 (2013), 127–132.
38. 38 Nyhan, B., et al. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133 (2014), e835–e842.
39. 39 Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33 (2015), 459–464.
40. 40 Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., Rational irrationality: modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8 (2016), 160–179.
41. 41 Feinberg, M., Willer, R., From gulf to bridge: when do moral arguments facilitate political influence?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 (2015), 1665–1681.
42. 42 Kahan, D.M., et al. Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 658 (2015), 192–222.
43. 43 Paxton, J.M., et al. Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cogn. Sci. 36 (2012), 163–177.
44. 44 Mercier, H. et al. The power of moral arguments. In Moral Inferences (Bonnefon, J.F. and Trémolière, B., eds), Psychology Press (in press).
45. 45 Dal Bó, E., Dal Bó, P., “Do the right thing”: the effects of moral suasion on cooperation. J. Public Econ. 117 (2014), 28–38.
46. 46 Dursun, I., Tümer Kabadayi, E., Resistance to persuasion in an anti-consumption context: biased assimilation of positive product information. J. Consum. Behav. 12 (2013), 93–101.
47. 47 Greitemeyer, T., I am right, you are wrong: how biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e93440.
48. 48 Deryugina, T., Shurchkov, O., The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0151469.
49. 49 Harris, A.J.L., et al. Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Think. Reason. 18 (2012), 311–343.
50. 50 Harris, A.J., et al. The appeal to expert opinion: quantitative support for a Bayesian network approach. Cogn. Sci., 2015 Published online September 1, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12276.
51. 51 Collins, P.J. and Hahn, U. Fallacies of argumentation. In International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (Thompson, V. and Ball, L.J., eds), Psychology Press (in press).
52. 52 Hahn, U. et al. Causal argument. In The Oxford Handbook of Causal Cognition, (in press).
53. 53 Politzer, G., et al. Preadolescents solve natural syllogisms proficiently. Cogn. Sci., 2016 Published online March 16, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12365.
54. 54 Hoeken, H., et al. Arguing about desirable consequences: what constitutes a convincing argument?. Think. Reason. 18 (2012), 394–416.
55. 55 Hoeken, H., et al. Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: laypeople's criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Think. Reason. 20 (2014), 77–98.
56. 56 Hornikx, J., de Best, J., Persuasive evidence in India: an investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality. Argum. Advocacy 47 (2011), 246–258.
57. 57 Markovits, H., et al. Elementary schoolchildren know a logical argument when they see one. J. Cogn. Psychol., 2016 Published online June 1, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1189918.
58. 58 Zhu, D.H., Group polarization in board decisions about CEO compensation. Organ. Sci. 25 (2013), 552–571.
59. 59 Grönlund, K., et al. Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions?. Polit. Behav. 37 (2015), 995–1020.
60. 60 Schulze, C., Newell, B.R., More heads choose better than one: group decision making can eliminate probability matching. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23 (2015), 907–914.
61. 61 Maciejovsky, B., et al. Teams make you smarter: how exposure to teams improves individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks. Manag. Sci. 59 (2013), 1255–1270.
62. 62 Minson, J.A., et al. Two to tango. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 (2011), 1325–1338.
63. 63 Woolley, A.W., et al. Collective intelligence and group performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 (2015), 420–424.
64. 64 Besedeš, T., et al. Effort and performance: what distinguishes interacting and noninteracting groups from individuals?. South. Econ. J. 81 (2014), 294–322.
65. 65 Mellers, B., et al. Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psychol. Sci. 25 (2014), 1106–1115.
66. 66 Kugler, T., et al. Are groups more rational than individuals?. A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 3 (2012), 471–482.
67. 67 Cheung, S.L., Palan, S., Two heads are less bubbly than one: team decision-making in an experimental asset market. Exp. Econ. 15 (2012), 373–397.
68. 68 Kesson, E.M., et al. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ, 344, 2012, e2718.
69. 69 Reimer, T. et al. Decision making in medical teams. In Organizations, Health, and Communication (Harrison, T. and Williams, E., eds), Routledge (in press).
70. 70 Lee, J.H., et al. Whats happening in the jury room? Analyzing shadow jury deliberations in Korea. J. Korean Law 13 (2014), 41–68.
71. 71 Kämmer, J.E., et al. The environment matters: comparing individuals and dyads in their adaptive use of decision strategies. Judgm. Decis. Mak., 8, 2013, 299.
72. 72 Chanel, O., et al. Impact of information on intentions to vaccinate in a potential epidemic: swine-origin influenza A (H1N1). Soc. Sci. Med. 72 (2011), 142–148.
73. 73 Minozzi, W., et al. Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 (2015), 3937–3942.
74. 74 Mercier, H., et al. Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning. Think. Reason. 21 (2015), 341–355.
75. 75 Mercier, H. et al. Natural born arguers: teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educ. Psychol. (in press).
76. 76 Gauvain, M., et al. Children's questions in cross-cultural perspective: a four-culture study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 44 (2013), 1148–1165.
77. 77 Zadunaisky Ehrlich, S., Argumentative discourse of kindergarten children: features of peer talk and children–teacher talk. J. Res. Child. Educ. 25 (2011), 248–267.
78. 78 Zadunaisky Ehrlich, S., Blum-Kulka, S., Peer talk as a “double opportunity space”: the case of argumentative discourse. Discourse Soc. 21 (2010), 211–233.
79. 79 Bova, A., Children's responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions. Ampersand 2 (2015), 109–121.
80. 80 Bova, A., Arcidiacono, F., Investigating children's why-questions: a study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Stud. 15 (2013), 713–734.
81. 81 Koenig, M.A., Beyond semantic accuracy: preschoolers evaluate a speaker's reasons. Child Dev. 83 (2012), 1051–1063.
82. 82 Mercier, H., et al. Early sensitivity to arguments: how preschoolers weight circular arguments. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 125 (2014), 102–109.
83. 83 Castelain, T., et al. The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony. Dev. Sci., 2015 Published online September 9, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12336.
84. 84 Corriveau, K.H., Kurkul, K.E., “Why does rain fall?.” Children prefer to learn from an informant who uses noncircular explanations. Child Dev. 85 (2014), 1827–1835.
85. 85 Frazier, B.N., et al. Young children prefer and remember satisfying explanations. J. Cogn. Dev., 2015 Published online September 9, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2015.1098649.
86. 86 Köymen, B., et al. Reasoning during joint decision-making by preschool peers. Cogn. Dev. 32 (2014), 74–85.
87. 87 Köymen, B., et al. Preschoolers use common ground in their justificatory reasoning with peers. Dev. Psychol. 52 (2015), 423–429.
88. 88 Schmidt, M.F., et al. Children's developing understanding of legitimate reasons for allocating resources unequally. Cogn. Dev. 37 (2016), 42–52.
89. 89 Arcidiacono, F., Bova, A., Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: differences and similarities in children of 3-5 and 6-9 years old. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 6 (2015), 40–55.
90. 90 Park, J., Lee, J., Dyadic collaboration among preschool-age children and the benefits of working with a more socially advanced peer. Early Educ. Dev. 26 (2015), 574–593.
91. 91 Mercier, H., et al. The benefits of argumentation are cross-culturally robust: the case of Japan. Think. Reason. 22 (2015), 1–15.
92. 92 Castelain, T., et al. Evidence for benefits of argumentative reasoning in a Mayan indigenous population. Evol. Hum. Behav., 2016 Published online February 15, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.02.002.
93. 93 Klein, N., Epley, N., Group discussion improves lie detection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (2015), 7460–7465.
94. 94 Smith, M.K., et al. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323 (2009), 122–124.
95. 95 Hautz, W.E., et al. Diagnostic performance by medical students working individually or in teams. JAMA 313 (2015), 303–304.
96. 96 van Dijk, F., et al. Judicial error by groups and individuals. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 108 (2014), 224–235.
97. 97 Sills, J., et al. The role of collaboration in the cognitive development of young children: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 42 (2016), 313–324.
98. 98 Slavin, R.E., Cooperative learning and academic achievement: why does groupwork work?. An. Psicol. 30 (2014), 785–791.
99. 99 Kyndt, E., et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?. Educ. Res. Rev. 10 (2013), 133–149.
100. 100 Blasco-Arcas, L., et al. Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Comput. Educ. 62 (2013), 102–110.
101. 101 Buchs, C., et al. Why students need to be prepared to cooperate: a cooperative nudge in statistics learning at university. Educ. Psychol. 36 (2016), 956–974.
102. 102 Hayek, A.-S., et al. Grading hampers cooperative information sharing in group problem solving. Soc. Psychol. 46 (2015), 121–131.
103. 103 Henderson, J.B., et al. Beyond construction: five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37 (2015), 1668–1697.
104. 104 Paus, E., et al. Learning through online peer discourse: structural equation modeling points to the role of discourse activities in individual understanding. Comput. Educ. 58 (2012), 1127–1137.
105. 105 Bathgate, M., et al. The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37 (2015), 1590–1612.
106. 106 Smith, M.K., et al. Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10 (2011), 55–63.
107. 107 Zhang, X., et al. Improving children's competence as decision makers: contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. Am. Educ. Res. J. 53 (2016), 194–223.
108. 108 Kuhn, D., et al. Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cogn. Instr. 31 (2013), 456–496.
109. 109 Iordanou, K., Constantinou, C.P., Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learn. Instr. 34 (2014), 42–57.
110. 110 Landemore, H., Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. 2012, Princeton University Press.
111. 111 Mercier, H., Landemore, H., Reasoning is for arguing: understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Polit. Psychol. 33 (2012), 243–258.
112. 112 List, C., et al. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. J. Polit. 75 (2013), 80–95.
113. 113 Smets, K., Isernia, P., The role of deliberation in attitude change: an empirical assessment of three theoretical mechanisms. Eur. Union Polit. 15 (2014), 389–409.
114. 114 Gerber, M. et al. Deliberative abilities and deliberative influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis). Br. J. Polit. Sci. (in press).
115. 115 Himmelroos, S., Christensen, H.S., Deliberation and opinion change: evidence from a deliberative mini-public in Finland. Scand. Polit. Stud. 37 (2014), 41–60.
116. 116 Gerber, M., et al. Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis. Eur. Union Polit. 15 (2014), 410–429.
117. 117 Westwood, S.J., The role of persuasion in deliberative opinion change. Polit. Commun. 32 (2015), 509–528.
118. 118 Steiner, J., The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. 2012, Cambridge University Press.
119. 119 Caluwaerts, D., Deschouwer, K., Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 6 (2013), 427–450.
120. 120 Suiter, J., et al. When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev., 2014 Published online September 11, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192512114544068.