Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-qxxll Total loading time: 0.695 Render date: 2021-06-18T10:34:52.468Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Hugo Mercier
Affiliation:
Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. hmercier@sas.upenn.edu http://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/
Dan Sperber
Affiliation:
Jean Nicod Institute (EHESS-ENS-CNRS), 75005 Paris, France; Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. dan@sperber.fr http://www.dan.sperber.fr
Corresponding

Abstract

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

Type
Target Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Acker, F. (2008) New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: Additional empirical data and meta-analysis. Judgment and Decision Making 3(4):292303.Google Scholar
Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A. & Susa, K. J. (2009) Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(4):1052–55.Google Scholar
Allen, C., Bekoff, M. & Lauder, G., eds. (1998) Nature's purposes. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allport, F. (1924) Social psychology. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J. & Richeson, J. A. (2000) Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 32, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 201–71. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ambady, N. & Gray, H. (2002) On being sad and mistaken mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:947–61.Google Scholar
Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2003) Decision by rules: Disassociation between preferences and willingness to act. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R. & Ross, L. (1980) Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(6):1037–49.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A., New, B. L. & Speer, J. R. (1985) Argument availability as a mediator of social theory perseverance. Social Cognition 3(3):235–49.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J. & Low, J. (2001) Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science 29(1):132.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Howe, C. & Tolmie, A. (1996) Interaction and mental models of physics phenomena: Evidence from dialogues between learners. In: Mental models in cognitive science: Essays in honour of Phil Johnson-Laird, ed. Oakhill, J. & Garnham, A., pp. 247–73. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G. & Mazar, N. (2009) Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies 76(2):451–69.Google Scholar
Ariely, D. & Levav, J. (2000) Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research 27(3):279–90.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R. & Ayton, P. (1999) The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychological Bulletin 125(5):591600.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35(1):124–40.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R., Guilmette, T. J., Faust, D. & Hart, K. (1988) Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 73(2):305307.Google Scholar
Augustinova, M. (2008) Falsification cueing in collective reasoning: Example of the Wason selection task. European Journal of Social Psychology 38(5):770–85.Google Scholar
Bailenson, J. N. & Rips, L. J. (1996) Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(7):S316.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1990) Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues 46(1):2746.Google Scholar
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. & Pastorelli, C. (1996) Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:364–74.Google Scholar
Barber, B. M., Heath, C. & Odean, T. (2003) Good reasons sell: Reason-based choice among group and individual investors in the stock market. Management Science 49(12):1636–52.Google Scholar
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., eds. (1992) The adapted mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1997) Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. Freeman.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F. & White, S. B. (1992) Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(2):220–40.Google Scholar
Berger, J. A. & Heath, C. (2007) Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research 34(2):121–34.Google Scholar
Bersoff, D. M. (1999) Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(1):2839.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1996) Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaisdell, A. P., Sawa, K., Leising, K. J. & Waldmann, M. R. (2006) Causal reasoning in rats. Science 311(5763):1020–22.Google Scholar
Blanchette, I. & Dunbar, K. (2001) Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Memory & Cognition 29(5):730–35.Google Scholar
Blinder, A. S. & Morgan, J. (2000) Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. individual decision making. NBER Working Paper 7909, National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M. & Hacohen, G. (2002) Traditions of dispute: From negotiations of Talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11):1569–94.Google Scholar
Boehm, C., with comments by Antweiler, C., Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., Kent, S., Knauft, B. M., Mithen, S., Richerson, P. J. & Wilson, D. S. (1996) Emergency decisions, cultural-selection mechanics, and group selection. Current Anthropology 37(5):763–93.Google Scholar
Boiney, L. G., Kennedy, J. & Nye, P. (1997) Instrumental bias in motivated reasoning: More when more is needed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72(1):124.Google Scholar
Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E. & Tanner, R. J. (2007) Precommitment bias in the evaluation of a single option. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102(2):240–54.Google Scholar
Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R. & Dalal, R. S. (2002) The effects of member expertise on group decision making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88:719–36.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B. & Young, S. M. (2000) A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: Implications for management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12(1):1964.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. E. & Sprinkle, G. B. (2002) The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(4–5):303–45.Google Scholar
Bragger, J. D., Hantula, D. A., Bragger, D., Kirnan, J. & Kutcher, E. (2003) When success breeds failure: History, hysteresis, and delayed exit decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1):614.Google Scholar
Bragger, J. L., Bragger, D. H., Hantula, D. A. & Kirnan, J. P. (1998) Hysteresis and uncertainty: The effect of information on delays to exit decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 74(3):229–53.Google Scholar
Braman, E. (2009) Law, politics, and perception: How policy preferences influence legal reasoning. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Brem, S. K. & Rips, L. J. (2000) Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science 24:573604.Google Scholar
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W. & Simonson, I. (2000) Reasons as carriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 27(2):157–78.Google Scholar
Brock, T. C. (1967) Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3(3):269309.Google Scholar
Brown, C. L. & Carpenter, G. S. (2000) Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research 26(4):372–85.Google Scholar
Brown, D. E. (1991) Human universals. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brownstein, A. L. (2003) Biased predecision processing. Psychological Bulletin 129(4):545–68.Google Scholar
Butera, F., Legrenzi, P., Mugny, G. & Pérez, J. A. (1992) Influence sociale et raisonnement. Bulletin de Psychologie 45:144–54.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. W. & Whiten, A., eds. (1988) Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1979) Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(1):97109.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. & Hogarth, R. M. (1999) The effect of financial incentives on performance in experiments: A review and capital-labor theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1):742.Google Scholar
Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R. & Nakamoto, K. (1994) Meaningful brand from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research 31(3):339–50.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. & Yates, S. (1985) Affective-cognitive consistency and thought-induced attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(6):1470–81.Google Scholar
Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999) The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology 38:191258.Google Scholar
Chernev, A. (2005) Context effects without a context: Attribute balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research 32(2):213–23.Google Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. & Beach, L. R. (1984) The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. American Psychologist 39(1):7578.Google Scholar
Claxton, G. (1997) Hare brain, tortoise mind: How intelligence increases when you think less. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Clément, F. (2010) To trust or not to trust? Children's social epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1(4):531–49.Google Scholar
Corner, A. & Hahn, U. (2009) Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15(3):199212.Google Scholar
Corner, A., Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2006) The slippery slope argument: Probability, utility and category reappraisal. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Sun, R. & Miyake, N., pp. 1145–50. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cowley, M. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2005) When falsification is the only path to truth. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Buchiarelli, M., pp. 512–17. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S. & Eshleman, A. (2003) A justification–suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):414–46.Google Scholar
Croson, R. T. A. (1999) The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80(2):118–33.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Sawyer, R. K. (1995) Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In: The nature of insight, ed. Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E., pp. 329–63. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, C. B., Schilling, N., Anders, C. & Carrier, D. R. (2010) The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans. Journal of Experimental Biology 213(5):790–97.Google Scholar
Dana, J., Weber, R. A. & Kuang, J. X. (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory 33(1):6780.Google Scholar
Davies, M. F. (1992) Field dependence and hindsight bias: Cognitive restructuring and the generation of reasons. Journal of Research in Personality 26(1):5874.Google Scholar
Davis, J. H. (1973) Group decisions and social interactions: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review 80(2):97125.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. (1978) Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In: Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, ed. Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B., pp. 282309. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dawson, E., Gilovich, T. & Regan, D. T. (2002) Motivated reasoning and performance on the Wason selection task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(10):1379–87.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1969) Content and consciousness. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dessalles, J.-L. (2007) Why we talk: The evolutionary origins of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L. & Bazerman, M. H. (1997) Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(5):1061–74.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004) Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(5):586–98.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F. & van Baaren, R.B. (2006b) On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(5763):10051007.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., van der Leij, A. & van Baaren, R.B. (2009) Predicting soccer matches after unconscious and conscious thought as a function of expertise. Psychological Science 20(11):1381–87.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. & van Olden, Z. (2006) On the benefits of thinking unconsciously: Unconscious thought can increase post-choice satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(5):627–31.Google Scholar
Ditto, P. H. & Lopez, D. F. (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(4):568–84.Google Scholar
Ditto, P. H., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., Scepansky, J. A. & Lockhart, L. K. (2003) Spontaneous skepticism: The interplay of motivation and expectation in responses to favorable and unfavorable medical diagnoses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(9):1120–32.Google Scholar
Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M. & Lockhart, L. K. (1998) Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1):5369.Google Scholar
Dubreuil, B. (2010) Paleolithic public goods games: Why human culture and cooperation did not evolve in one step. Biology and Philosophy. 25(1):5373.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1997) How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence discovery and change, ed. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. & Vaid, S., pp. 461–93. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996) The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:178–90.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. & Shultz, S. (2003) Evolution of the social brain. Science 302:1160–61.Google Scholar
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A. & Holzberg, A. D. (1989) Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(6):1082–90.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L. A., Shaw, K. & Hutson-Comeaux, S. (2000) Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(11):1392–408.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, E. B. & Bowers, R. J. (1974) Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shifts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29(3):316–27.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. & Smith, E. E. (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1):524.Google Scholar
Esser, J. K. (1998) Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73(2–3):116–41.Google Scholar
Esser, J. K. & Lindoerfer, J. S. (1989) Groupthink and the space shuttle Challenger accident: Toward a quantitative case analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2(3):167–77.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989) Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996) Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology 87:223–40.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002) Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128(6):978–96.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L. & Pollard, P. (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 11:295306.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Harper, C. N. J. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999) Reasoning about necessity and possibility: A test of the mental model theory of deduction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25(6):1495–513.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Lynch, J. S. (1973) Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology 64(3):391–97.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993) Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Wason, P. C. (1976) Rationalisation in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology 63:205–12.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, P. R. & Behner, A. (1931) A note on the attitude of social conformity. Journal of Social Psychology 2:126–28.Google Scholar
Foot, H., Howe, C., Anderson, A., Tolmie, A. & Warden, D. (1994) Group and interactive learning. Computational Mechanics Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, B. (1817/2006) The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. NuVision. (Original work published 1817.).Google Scholar
Garland, H. (1990) Throwing good money after bad: The effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6):728–31.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2003) Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86(3):223–51.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T. (2002) Inferential correction. In: Heuristics and biases, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 167–84. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T. & Ebert, J. E. J. (2002) Decisions and revisions: The affective forecasting of changeable outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(4):503–14.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T. (1983) Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(6):1110–26.Google Scholar
Girotto, V., Kemmelmeier, M., Sperber, D. & Van der Henst, J.-B. (2001) Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition 81(2):6976.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2005) Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. C. & Graefe, A. (2007) Methods to elicit forecasts from groups: Delphi and prediction markets compared. Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting Fall: 1721.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1969) The open-mindedness of the counterattitudinal role player. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5(4):375–88.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. Cole, P. & Morgan, J. P.. Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, D. W. & Dunning, D. (1990) The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personality 59(6):1128–39.Google Scholar
Guenther, C. L. & Alicke, M. D. (2008) Self-enhancement and belief perseverance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(3):706–12.Google Scholar
Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Takezawa, M. & Mata, J. (2008) To give or not to give: Children's and adolescents' sharing and moral negotiations in economic decision situations. Child Development 79(3):562–76.Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L. & Begue, L. (2005) Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin 131(1):128–67.Google Scholar
Hagler, D. A. & Brem, S. K. (2008) Reaching agreement: The structure & pragmatics of critical care nurses' informal argument. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33(3):403–24.Google Scholar
Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2007) The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114:704–32.Google Scholar
Hahn, U., Oaksford, M. & Bayindir, H. (2005) How convinced should we be by negative evidence? In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Buchiarelli, M., pp. 887–92. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. & Bjorklund, F. (2007) Social intuitionists reason, in conversation. In: Moral Psychology, vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity, ed. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., pp. 241–54. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halberstadt, J. B. & Levine, G. M. (1999) Effects of reasons analysis on the accuracy of predicting basketball games. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(3):517–30.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. W. & Thompson, D. V. (2007) Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers' preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research 34(4):546–55.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1986) Change in view: Principles of reasoning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L. (2007) Trust. Developmental Science 10(1):135–38.Google Scholar
Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. & Merrill, L. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin 135(4):555–88.Google Scholar
Hill, G. W. (1982) Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin 91(3):517–39.Google Scholar
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S. & Nagao, D. H. (2008) Accentuation of information processes and biases in group judgments integrating base-rate and case-specific information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(1):116–26.Google Scholar
Hirt, E. R. & Markman, K. D. (1995) Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(6):1069–86.Google Scholar
Hoch, S. J. (1985) Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11(4):719–31.Google Scholar
Howe, C. J. (1990) Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education 5(4):459–75.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2009) Mothers and others. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1995) Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62(3):330–37.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1996a) Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66(1):122–29.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1996b) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(3):247–57.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1998) Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11(2):107–21.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1999) Value seeking and prediction-decision inconsistency: Why don't people take what they predict they'll like the most? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6(4):555–61.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. & Hastie, R. (2006) Decision and experience: Why don't we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(1):3137.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S. & Bazerman, M. H. (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125(5):576–90.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K. & Zhang, J. (2004) Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(5):680–95.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Yu, F. & Xi, Y. (2003) Lay rationalism and inconsistency between predicted experience and decision. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16(4):257–72.Google Scholar
Huber, J., Payne, J. W. & Puto, C. (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 9(1):9098.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. K. (1976) The social function of Intellect. In: Growing points in ethology, ed. Bateson, P. P. G. & Hinde, R. A., pp. 303–17. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Igou, E. R. (2004) Lay theories in affective forecasting: The progression of affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(4):528–34.Google Scholar
Igou, E. R. & Bless, H. (2007) On undesirable consequences of thinking: Framing effects as a function of substantive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 20(2):125–42.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. & McClelland, G. H. (1993) Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6(1):518.Google Scholar
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(6):1141–51.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1996) How language helps us think. Pragmatics and Cognition 4(1):134.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink, 2nd rev. ed. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press.Google Scholar
Jellison, J. M. & Mills, J. (1969) Effect of public commitment upon opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5(3):340–46.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2007) Creative constructive controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom, 4th ed. Interaction.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009) Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher 38(1):3751.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J., Haubl, G. & Keinan, A. (2007) Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33:461–73.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006) How we reason. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002) Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109(4):646–78.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Wason, P. C. (1970) Insight into a logical relation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 22(1):4961.Google Scholar
John-Steiner, V. (2000) Creative collaboration. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, M. & Sugden, R. (2001) Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision 50(1):5999.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58(9):697720.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 4981. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2005) A model of heuristic judgment. In: The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R. G., pp. 267–94. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Ritov, I. (1994) Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9(1):537.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3(3):430–54.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M. F. & Miller, C. E. (1977) Judgments and group discussion: Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry 40(4):337–43.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1986) Cogitations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keeney, S., Hasson, F. & McKenna, H. P. (2001) A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies 38(2):195200.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., Maccoun, R. J. & Kramer, G. P. (1996) Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review 103(4):687719.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 55:623–55.Google Scholar
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P. & Yuille, A. (2004) Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology 55:271304.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. (1997) Bias in adolescents' everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology 33(2):273–83.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Cottrell, J. M. (2004) A dual-process approach to cognitive development: The case of children's understanding of sunk cost decisions. Thinking & Reasoning 10(2):147–74.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Gordon, D. H. (1996a) Everyday statistical reasoning during adolescence and young adulthood: Motivational, general ability, and developmental influences. Child Development 67(6):2873–91.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Gordon, D. H. (1996b) Self-serving influences on adolescents' evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 62(3):317–39.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H. & Fauth, J. (1997) Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology 89(3):470–85.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Lavallee, K. L. (2005) Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 92(1):124.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Narasimham, G. (1998) Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology 34(1):175–87.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. & Robinson, B. (2000) Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning tasks. Psychology and Aging 15(3):400–16.Google Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Musch, J. & Naumer, B. (2000) On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review 107(4):852–84.Google Scholar
Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94(2):211–28.Google Scholar
Klein, G. (1998) Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1993) The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56(1):2855.Google Scholar
Kogan, N. & Wallach, M. A. (1966) Modification of a judgmental style through group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(2):165–74.Google Scholar
Koole, S. L., Dijksterhuis, A. & Van Knippenberg, A. (2001) What's in a name: Implicit self-esteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(4):669–85.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S. & Fischhoff, B. (1980) Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6(2):107–18.Google Scholar
Kray, L. & Gonzalez, R. (1999) Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I'll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12(3):207–17.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. & Dawkins, R. (1984) Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation? In: Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, 2nd ed., ed. Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B., pp. 390402. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. & Freund, T. (1983) The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19(5):448–68.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1992) Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62(2):155–78.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Lao, J. (1996) Effects of evidence on attitudes: Is polarization the norm? Psychological Science 7(2):115–20.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. F. & Felton, M. (1997) Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 15(3):287315.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M. & Flaton, R. (1994) How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science 5(5):289–96.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1987) Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(4):636–47.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108(3):480–98.Google Scholar
Lambert, A. J., Cronen, S., Chasteen, A. L. & Lickel, B. (1996) Private vs public expressions of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32(5):437–59.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (in press) Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective intelligence in politics. In: Collective wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, ed. Landemore, H. & Elster, J.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lao, J. & Kuhn, D. (2002) Cognitive engagement and attitude development. Cognitive Development 17(2):1203–17.Google Scholar
Lassiter, G. D., Lindberg, M. J., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Bellezza, F. S. & Phillips, N. D. (2009) The deliberation-without-attention effect: Evidence for an artifactual interpretation. Psychological Science 20(6):671–75.Google Scholar
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(2):605–20.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R. & Ellis, A. L. (1986) Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22(3):177–89.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S. & Boh, L. (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4):644–51.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., VanderStoep, S. W. & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991) Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(1):5067.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M. & Tan, T. S. (2003) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(4):684–94.Google Scholar
Lee, L., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2009) In search of Homo economicus: Preference consistency, emotions, and cognition. Journal of Consumer Research 36:173–87.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125(2):255–75.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1987) Pretense and representation: The origins of a “theory of mind.” Psychological Review 94(4):412–26.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. & Chaiken, S. (1991) Value conflict and thought-induced attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27(3):203–16.Google Scholar
Littlepage, G. E. & Mueller, A. L. (1997) Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior. Group Dynamics 1(4):324–28.Google Scholar
Lombardelli, C., Proudman, J. & Talbot, J. (2005) Committees versus individuals: An experimental analysis of monetary policy decision-making. International Journal of Central Banking 1(1):181205.Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11):2098–109.Google Scholar
Lucas, E. J. & Ball, L. J. (2005) Think-aloud protocols and the selection task: Evidence for relevance effects and rationalisation processes. Thinking and Reasoning 11(1):3566.Google Scholar
Maciejovsky, B. & Budescu, D. V. (2007) Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(5):854–70.Google Scholar
Madsen, D. B. (1978) Issue importance and group choice shifts: A persuasive arguments approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(10):1118–27.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1(2):161–75.Google Scholar
Mascaro, O. & Sperber, D. (2009) The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112(3):367–80.Google Scholar
Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research 45(6):633–44.Google Scholar
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S. & Siegel, J. (1987) Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(5):917–30.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 1, ed. Berkowitz, L.. Academic Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, C. R. M. (2004) Framing effects in inference tasks – and why they're normatively defensible. Memory & Cognition 32(6):874–85.Google Scholar
McKenzie, C. R. M. & Nelson, J. D. (2003) What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10(3):596602.Google Scholar
McMackin, J. & Slovic, P. (2000) When does explicit justification impair decision making? Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology 14(6):527–41.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (in press a) On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Landemore, H. (in press) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2009) Intuitive and reflective inferences. In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 149–70. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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(5):834–39.Google Scholar
Milch, K. F., Weber, E. U., Appelt, K. C., Handgraaf, M. J. J. & Krantz, D. H. (2009) From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.Google Scholar
Millar, M. G. & Tesser, A. (1986) Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2):259–69.Google Scholar
Millar, M. G. & Tesser, A. (1989) The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25(2):189202.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G., Michoskey, J. W., Bane, C. M. & Dowd, T. G. (1993) The attitude polarization phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(4):561–74.Google Scholar
Molden, D. C. & Higgins, E. T. (2005) Motivated thinking. In: The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A. & Kane, M. J. (2008) Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science 19(6):549–57.Google Scholar
Moorhead, G., Ference, R. & Neck, C. P. (1991) Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations 44(6):539–50.Google Scholar
Morsanyi, K. & Handley, S. J. (2008) How smart do you need to be to get it wrong? The role of cognitive capacity in the development of heuristic-based judgment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 99(1):1836.Google Scholar
Moshman, D. & Geil, M. (1998) Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 4(3):231–48.Google Scholar
Navarro, A. D. & Fantino, E. (2005) The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 83(1):113.Google Scholar
Neuman, Y. (2003) Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students' ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction 13(4):367–80.Google Scholar
Neuman, Y., Weinstock, M. P. & Glasner, A. (2006) The effect of contextual factors on the judgment of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 59:411–25.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Wong, K. Y., Cheung, J. C. H. & Rakow, T. (2009) Think, blink or sleep on it? The impact of modes of thought on complex decision making. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(4):707–32.Google Scholar
Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J. & Buck, E. (1999) Falsifying mental models: Testing the predictions of theories of syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 27(2):344–54.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175220.Google Scholar
Niv, Y. & Schoenbaum, G. (2008) Dialogues on prediction errors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(7):265–72.Google Scholar
Novaes, C. D. (2005) Medieval obligationes as logical games of consistency maintenance. Synthese 145(3):371–95.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008) Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33(3):345–59.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M. & Sinatra, G. M. (2003) Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28(3):384–95.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M., Chater, N. & Grainger, R. (1999) Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking & Reasoning 5(3):193243.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Hahn, U. (2004) A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58(2):7585.Google Scholar
Okada, E. M. (2005) Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 42(1):4353.Google Scholar
Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997) Collaboration discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science 21(2):109–46.Google Scholar
Ormerod, P. (2005) Why most things fail: Evolution, extinction and economics. Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Paese, P. W., Bieser, M. & Tubbs, M. E. (1993) Framing effects and choice shifts in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56(1):149–56.Google Scholar
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1993) Reasoning in explanation-based decision-making. Cognition 49(1–2):123–63.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N. (1985) Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology 77(5):562–71.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(10):1915–26.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1998) Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: The handbook of social psychology, vol. 1, ed. Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. & Lindzey, G., pp. 323–90. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. (1996) Paradoxes of falsification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 49(2):447–62.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S. & Tordesillas, R. S. (1995) Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3):408–19.Google Scholar
Powell, C. (2003) The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41(4):376–82.Google Scholar
Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K. & Powers, A. (2009) “There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociological Inquiry 79(2):142–62.Google Scholar
Premack, D. & Woodruff, G. (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4):515–26.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2005) Epistemic luck. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pyszczynski, T. & Greenberg, J. (1987) Toward and integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 20, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 297340. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D. & Stewart, D. W. (1987) Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4):520–33.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000) Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2002) Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics 64(4):1021–44.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H. & Holowchak, M. (1993) Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction 11(3–4):347–64.Google Scholar
Ricco, R. B. (2003) The macrostructure of informal arguments: A proposed model and analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 56(6):1021–51.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1994) The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1998) Reasoning and conversation. Psychological Review 105(3):411–41.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (2002) Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(6):767–95.Google Scholar
Ritchart, R. & Perkins, D. N. (2005) Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In: The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. J. & Newton, E. J. (2001) Inspection times, the change task, and the rapid response selection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 54(4):1031–48.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R. & Hubbard, M. (1975) Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(5):880–92.Google Scholar
Ross, M., McFarland, C. & Fletcher, G. J. (1981) The effect of attitude on the recall of personal histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(4):627–34.Google Scholar
Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15(4):353–75.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., Millman, L. & Nemeroff, C. (1986) Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(4):703–12.Google Scholar
Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A. & Meloy, M. G. (2006) Choosing an inferior alternative. Psychological Science 17(10):899904.Google Scholar
Ryan, W. (1971) Blaming the victim. Pantheon.Google Scholar
, W. C., Kelley, C. N., Ho, C. & Stanovich, K. E. (2005) Thinking about personal theories: Individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences 38(5):1149–61.Google Scholar
Sacco, K. & Bucciarelli, M. (2008) The role of cognitive and socio-cognitive conflict in learning to reason. Mind & Society 7(1):119.Google Scholar
Sadler, O. & Tesser, A. (1973) Some effects of salience and time upon interpersonal hostility and attraction during social isolation. Sociometry 36(1):99112.Google Scholar
Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z. & Fong, G. T. (1990) Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2):229–41.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley.Google Scholar
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R. & Todd, P. M. (2009) What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychology & Marketing 26(3):229–53.Google Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R. & Frey, D. (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(6):1080–93.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, M. E. & Hsee, C. K. (2002) Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25(2):185201.Google Scholar
Sela, A., Berger, J. & Liu, W. (2009) Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 35(6): 941–51.Google Scholar
Sengupta, J. & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000) The effects of analyzing reasons for brand preferences: Disruption or reinforcement? Journal of Marketing Research 37(3):318–30.Google Scholar
Sengupta, J. & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004) The effect of analyzing reasons on the stability of brand attitudes: A reconciliation of opposing predictions. Journal of Consumer Research 31(3):705–11.Google Scholar
Shafir, E. & Tversky, A. (1992) Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 24(4):449–74.Google Scholar
Shafir, E., Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1993) Reason-based choice. Cognition 49 (1–2):1136.Google Scholar
Shaw, V. F. (1996) The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 2:5180.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1):99118.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research 16(2):158–74.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. (1990) The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 27(2):150–62.Google Scholar
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z. & O'Curry, S. (1994) Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science 13(1):2340.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. & Nowlis, S. M. (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research 27(1):4968.Google Scholar
Simonson, I., Nowlis, S. M. & Simonson, Y. (1993) The effect of irrelevant preference arguments on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2(3):287306.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. & Nye, P. (1992) The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51:416–46.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice, 2nd ed. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):322.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1975) Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1:280–87.Google Scholar
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. & Su, T. T. (2009) Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323(5910):122–24.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M., Fabrigar, L. R. & Norris, M. E. (2008) Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(1):464–93.Google Scholar
Sniezek, J. A. & Henry, R. A. (1989) Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43(1):128.Google Scholar
Snyder, M., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A. & Mentzer, S. J. (1979) Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(12):2297–306.Google Scholar
Soman, D. & Cheema, A. (2001) The effect of windfall gains on the sunk-cost effect. Marketing Letters 12(1):5162.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. & Kinzler, K. D. (2007) Core knowledge. Developmental Science 10(1):8996.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1997) Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language 12(1):6783.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000a) Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In: Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, ed. Sperber, D., pp. 117–37. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., ed. (2000b) Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2001) An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics 29:401–13.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Cara, F. & Girotto, V. (1995) Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 57(1):3195.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4):359–93.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2002) Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17(1–2):323.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2004) The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning the age of Darwin. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127(2):161–88.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2007) Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning 13(3):225–47.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2008a) On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning 14(2):129–67.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2008b) On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94(4):672–95.Google Scholar
Stasson, M. F., Kameda, T., Parks, C. D., Zimmerman, S. K. & Davis, J. H. (1991) Effects of assigned group consensus requirement on group problem solving and group members' learning. Social Psychology Quarterly 54(1):2535.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M. (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review 6(4):577–87.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., Bernas, R. S. & Calicchia, D. J. (1997) Conflict talk: Understanding and resolving arguments. In: Conversation: Cognitive, communicative, and social perspectives, ed. Givon, T., pp. 233–68. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., Bernas, R. S., Calicchia, D. J. & Wright, A. (1996) Understanding and resolving arguments: The dynamics of negotiation. In: Models of understanding text, ed. Britton, B. & Graesser, A. G., pp. 257–88. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972) Group processes and productivity. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (in press) The evolved apprentice. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2002) The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2):175–95.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3):755–69.Google Scholar
Taleb, N. N. (2007) The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.Google Scholar
Tesser, A. (1976) Attitude polarization as a function of thought and reality constraints. Journal of Research in Personality 10(2):183–94.Google Scholar
Tesser, A. & Conlee, M. C. (1975) Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(2):262–70.Google Scholar
Tesser, A. & Leone, C. (1977) Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(4):340–56.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1998) Close-call counterfactuals and belief-system defenses: I was not almost wrong but I was almost right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(3):639–52.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. & Boettger, R. (1989) Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(3):388–98.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S. & Boettger, R. (1996) The dilution effect: Judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? European Journal of Social Psychology 26(6):915–34.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L. & Boettger, R. (1989) Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(4):632–40.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W. & Rust, R. T. (2005a) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research 42(4):431–42.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. V. & Norton, M. I. (2008) The social utility of feature creep. In: Advances in consumer research, vol. 35, ed. Lee, A. & Soman, D., pp. 181–84. Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. & Handley, S. J. (2005b) Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2):238–57.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Striemer, C. L., Reikoff, R., Gunter, R. W. & Campbell, J. I. D. (2003) Syllogistic reasoning time: Disconfirmation disconfirmed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10(1):184–89.Google Scholar
Thorsteinson, T. J. & Withrow, S. (2009) Does unconscious thought outperform conscious thought on complex decisions? A further examination. Judgment and Decision Making 4(3):235–47.Google Scholar
Tichy, G. (2004) The over-optimism among experts in assessment and foresight. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71(4):341–63.Google Scholar
Tindale, R. S. & Sheffey, S. (2002) Shared information, cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 5(1):518.Google Scholar
Tolmie, A., Howe, C., Mackenzie, M. & Greer, K. (1993) Task design as an influence on dialogue and learning: Primary school group work with object flotation. Social Development 2(3):183201.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5):675–91.Google Scholar
Trognon, A. (1993) How does the process of interaction work when two interlocutors try to resolve a logical problem? Cognition and Instruction 11(3–4):325–45.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–58.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90(4):293315.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Shafir, E. (1992) The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science 3(5):305309.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., Sattath, S. & Slovic, P. (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95(3):371–84.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Worner, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A. & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980) Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32(1):109–23.Google Scholar
Valdesolo, P. & DeSteno, D. (2008) The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(5):1334–38.Google Scholar
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, C. & Kanselaar, G. (2000) Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction 10(4):311–30.Google Scholar
Vinokur, A. (1971) Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. Psychological Bulletin 76(4):231–50.Google Scholar
Vinokur, A. & Burnstein, E. (1978) Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(8):872–85.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 12(3):129–37.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1966) Reasoning. In: New horizons in psychology: I, ed. Foss, B. M., pp. 106–37. Penguin.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975) Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3:141–54.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M. & Palinscar, A. S. (1996) Group processes in the classroom. In: Handbook of educational psychology, ed. Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C., pp. 841–73. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K. F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J. & Goldstein, D. G. (2007) Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query theory account. Psychological Science 18(6):516–23.Google Scholar
Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y. & Tabak, I. (2004) Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(1):7794.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. & Byrne, R. W., eds. (1997) Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willingham, D. T. (2008) Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review 109(4):2132.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Bybee, J. A., Hyman, D. B. & Rotondo, J. A. (1984) Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(1):516.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Kraft, D. & Lisle, D. J. (1989a) Introspection, attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive effects of explaining why we feel the way we do. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 19, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 123205. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D. & Dunn, D. S. (1989b) The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25(5):379400.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D. & LaFleur, S. J. (1995) Knowing what you'll do: Effects of analyzing reasons on self-prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(1):2135.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., Schooler, J. W., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J. & LaFleur, S. J. (1993) Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19(3):331–39.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D. & Schooler, J. W. (1991) Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Thinking 60(2):181–92.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M. & Kawato, M. (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 11(7–8):1317–29.Google Scholar
Xu, J. & Schwarz, N. (2009) Do we really need a reason to indulge? Journal of Marketing Research 46(1):2536.Google Scholar
Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W. & Shinotsuka, H. (1992) Cross-national variation in probability judgment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A. (1997) The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
715
Cited by

Linked content