Skip to main content

Argumentation: Its adaptiveness and efficacy

  • Hugo Mercier (a1) and Dan Sperber (a2)

Having defended the usefulness of our definition of reasoning, we stress that reasoning is not only for convincing but also for evaluating arguments, and that as such it has an epistemic function. We defend the evidence supporting the theory against several challenges: People are good informal arguers, they reason better in groups, and they have a confirmation bias. Finally, we consider possible extensions, first in terms of process-level theories of reasoning, and second in the effects of reasoning outside the lab.

Hide All
Bailenson, J. N. & Rips, L. J. (1996) Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(7):S316.
Bloom, P. (2010) How do morals change? Nature 464(7288):490.
Carruthers, P. (1996) Language, thought and consciousness: An essay in philosophical psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1986) An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics 97(1):2638.
Dunbar, K. (1995) How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: The nature of insight, ed. Steinberg, R. J. & Davidson, J., pp. 365–95. MIT Press.
Estlund, D. (2007) Democratic authority. A philosophical framework. Princeton University Press.
Goldstein, M., Crowell, A. & Kuhn, D. (2009) What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic 29(4):379–95.
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.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3):6183.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006) How we reason. Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K. & Shaenfield, D. (2008) Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development 79(5):1310–29.
Landemore, H. (2007) Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. |jHarvard University.
Landemore, H. & Mercier, H. (submitted) “Talking it out”: Deliberation with others versus deliberation within.
Langer, E. J., Blank, A. & Chanowitz, B. (1978) The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(6):635–42.
Larson, M., Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. A. (2004) Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology 25:205–24.
Levin, I. & Druyan, S. (1993) When sociocognitive transaction among peers fails: The case of misconceptions in science. Child Development 64(5):1571–91.
Mascaro, O. & Sperber, D. (2009) The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112(3):367–80.
Mercier, H. (submitted a) Looking for arguments.
Mercier, H. (in press a) On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture.
Mercier, H. (in press b) Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development.
Mercier, H. (in press c) What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society.
Mercier, H. (submitted b) When experts argue: Explaining the best and the worst of reasoning.
Mercier, H. & Landemore, H. (in press) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology.
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.
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.
Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J. & Nisbett, R. E. (2002) Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(5):653–84.
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.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. & Goldman, R. (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5):847–55.
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4):707–84.
Rips, L. J. (1994) The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press.
Rips, L. J. (2002) Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(6):767–95.
, 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.
Sell, A. (2006) Regulating welfare tradeoff ratios: Three tests of an evolutionary-computational model of human anger. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 66 (8-B):4516.
Sperber, D. (2009) L'effet gourou. L'autre côté 1:1723.
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4):359–93.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Blackwell.
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.
Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2008) Locus of the my-side bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 14(1):127.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed