Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory

References/Mercier & Sperber: Why do humans reason?Jones, M. & Sugden, R. (2001) Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition ofinformation. Theory and Decision 50(1):59–99. [aHM]Kahneman, D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping boundedrationality. American Psychologist 58(9):697–720. [aHM]Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attributesubstitution in intuitive judgement. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychologyof intuitive judgment, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman, pp. 49–81.Cambridge University Press. [JStBTE, aHM]Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2005) A model of heuristic judgment. In: TheCambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. K. Holyoak & R. G.Morrison, pp. 267–94. Cambridge University Press. [aHM]Kahneman, D. & Ritov, I. (1994) Determinants of stated willingness to pay forpublic goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty9(1):5–37. [aHM]Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology 3(3):430–54. [aHM]Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973) On the psychology of prediction. PsychologicalReview 80:237–57. [MO]Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press. [aHM]Kaplan, M. F. & Miller, C. E. (1977) Judgments and group discussion: Effect ofpresentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry 40(4):337–43.[aHM]Katz, J. J. (1986) Cogitations. Oxford University Press. [aHM]Keeney, S., Hasson, F. & McKenna, H. P. (2001) A critical review of the Delphitechnique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal ofNursing Studies 38(2):195–200. [aHM]Kerr, N. L., Maccoun, R. J. & Kramer, G. P. (1996) Bias in judgment: Comparingindividuals and groups. Psychological Review 103(4):687–719. [aHM]Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004) Group performance and decision making.Annual Review of Psychology 55:623–55. [aHM]Kersten, D., Mamassian, P. & Yuille, A. (2004) Object perception as Bayesianinference. Annual Review of Psychology 55:271–304. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. (1997) Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationshipwith intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. DevelopmentalPsychology 33(2):273–83. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Cottrell, J. M. (2004) A dual-process approach to cognitivedevelopment: The case of children’s understanding of sunk cost decisions.Thinking & Reasoning 10(2):147–74. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Gordon, D. H. (1996a) Everyday statistical reasoning duringadolescence and young adulthood: Motivational, general ability, and developmentalinfluences. Child Development 67(6):2873–91. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Gordon, D. H. (1996b) Self-serving influences on adolescents’evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology62(3):317–39. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H. & Fauth, J. (1997) Goal-oriented critical reasoningand individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of EducationalPsychology 89(3):470–85. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Lavallee, K. L. (2005) Domain-specific identity, epistemicregulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning:A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology92(1):1–24. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Narasimham, G. (1998) Development of scientific reasoningbiases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology34(1):175–87. [aHM]Klaczynski, P. A. & Robinson, B. (2000) Personal theories, intellectual ability, andepistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning tasks.Psychology and Aging 15(3):400–16. [aHM]Klauer, K. C., Musch, J. & Naumer, B. (2000) On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning.Psychological Review 107(4):852–84. [aHM, EJNS]Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation and information inhypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94(2):211–28. [aHM, FHP]Klein, G. (1998) Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.[aHM]Koehler, J. J. (1993) The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidencequality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes56(1):28–55. [aHM]Koenig, M. A., Clement, F. & Harris, P. L. (2004) Trust in testimony: Children’s useof true and false statements. Psychological Science 15:694–98. [JEO]Kogan, N. & Wallach, M. A. (1966) Modification of a judgmental style throughgroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(2):165–74.[aHM]Konrath, S., O’Brien, E. H. & Hsing, C. (in press) Changes in dispositional empathyover time in college students: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social PsychologyReview. [DN]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 SocialPsychology 80(4):669–85. [aHM]Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S. & Fischhoff, B. (1980) Reasons for confidence. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6(2):107–18.[aHM]Kray, L. & Gonzalez, R. (1999) Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll dothis, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12(3):207–17.[aHM]Krebs, J. R. & Dawkins, R. (1984) Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation?In: Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, 2nd ed., ed. J. R. Krebs &N. B. Davies, pp. 390–402. Basil Blackwell. [aHM]Kressel, L. (2010) Spontaneous trait inferences, and explicit and implicit theoriesabout traits causing behaviors. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.[JSU]Kressel, L. & Uleman, J. S. (2010) Personality traits function as causal concepts.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:213–16. [JSU]Kruglanski, A. W. & Freund, T. (1983) The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences:Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numericalanchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19(5):448–68. [aHM]Kuhn, D. (1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press. [DK, aHM]Kuhn, D. (1992) Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62(2):155–78. [aHM]Kuhn, D. (2001) How do people know? Psychological Sciences 12:1–8. [CRW]Kuhn, D. & Crowell, A. (in press) Argumentation as a path to the thinking developmentof young adolescents. Psychological Science. [DK]Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K. & Shaenfield, D. (2008) Arguing on the computer:A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supportedenvironment. Child Development 79(5):1310–29. [DK, rHM]Kuhn, D. & Lao, J. (1996) Effects of evidence on attitudes: Is polarization thenorm? Psychological Science 7(2):115–20. [aHM]Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. F. & Felton, M. (1997) Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentativereasoning. Cognition and Instruction 15(3):287–315. [aHM]Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M. & Flaton, R. (1994) How well do jurors reason? Competencedimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. PsychologicalScience 5(5):289–96. [aHM]Kuipers, B. (2000) The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artificial Intelligence 119(1–2):191–233. [JW]Kunda, Z. (1987) Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluationof evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(4):636–47.[aHM]Kunda, Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3):480–98. [aHM]Lambert, A. J., Cronen, S., Chasteen, A. L. & Lickel, B. (1996) Private vs publicexpressions of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology32(5):437–59. [aHM]Landemore, H. (2007) Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and therule of the many. Harvard University. [rHM]Landemore, H. (in press) Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collectiveintelligence in politics. In: Collective wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms,ed. H. Landemore & J. Elster. Cambridge University Press [aHM]Landemore, H. & Mercier, H. (submitted) “Talking it out”: Deliberation withothers versus deliberation within. [rHM]Langer, E. J., Blank, A. & Chanowitz, B. (1978) The mindlessness of ostensiblythoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(6):635–42. [rHM]Lao, J. & Kuhn, D. (2002) Cognitive engagement and attitude development. CognitiveDevelopment 17(2):1203–17. [aHM]Larson, M., Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. A. (2004) Disfluencies in comprehendingargumentative texts. Reading Psychology 25:205–24. [rHM, CRW]Lassiter, G. D., Lindberg, M. J., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Bellezza, F. S. & Phillips, N.D. (2009) The deliberation-without-attention effect: Evidence for an artifactualinterpretation. Psychological Science 20(6):671–75. [aHM]Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L. & Miner, A. G. (2002) Groups perform better thanthe best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes 88(2):605–20. [aHM]Laughlin, P. R. & Ellis, A. L. (1986) Demonstrability and social combination processeson mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology22(3):177–89. [aHM]Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S. & Boh, L. (2006) Groups performbetter than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects ofgroup size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4):644–51.[aHM]Laughlin, P. R., VanderStoep, S. W. & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991) Collective versusindividual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collectiveinformation processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61(1):50–67. [aHM]Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M. & Tan, T. S. (2003) Groups performbetter than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informativeequations and effective reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85(4):684–94. [aHM]106 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2011) 34:2