, 25:313 | Cite as

When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning

  • Hugo Mercier


Expert reasoning is responsible for some of the most stunning human achievements, but also for some of the most disastrous decisions ever made. The argumentative theory of reasoning has proven very effective at explaining the pattern of reasoning’s successes and failures. In the present article, it is expanded to account for expert reasoning. The argumentative theory predicts that reasoning should display a strong confirmation bias. If argument quality is not sufficiently high in a domain, the confirmation bias will make experts tap into their vast knowledge to defend whatever opinion they hold, with polarization and overconfidence as expected results. By contrast, experts should benefit even more from the power of group discussion to make the best of the confirmation bias—when they genuinely disagree that is, otherwise polarization is again likely to ensue. When experts interact with laymen other mechanisms can take the lead, in particular trust calibration and consistency checking. They can yield poor outcomes if experts do not have a sustained interaction with laymen, or if the laymen have strong opinions when they witness a debate between experts. Seeing reasoning as a mechanism of epistemic vigilance aimed at finding and evaluating arguments helps make better sense of expert reasoning performance, be it in individual ratiocination, in debates with other experts, or in interactions with laymen.


Argumentation Reasoning Expertise Group decision making 


  1. Allgeier, A.R., D. Byrne, B. Brooks, and D. Revnes. 1979. The waffle phenomenon: Negative evaluations of those who shift attitudinally. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9(2): 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailenson, J.N., and L.J. Rips. 1996. Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(7): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bainbridge, S.M. 2002. Why a board? Group decision making in corporate governance. Vanderbilt Law Review 55: 1–55.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, J. 1995. Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning 1: 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, S., and P. Bloom. 2003. Children are cursed: An asymmetric bias in mental-state attribution. Psychological Science 14(3): 283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bothwell, R.K., and J. Brigham. 1983. Selective evaluation and recall during the 1980 Reagan-carter debate 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13(5): 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassidy, J. 2010. After the blowup. New Yorker 85(44): 28–33. Scholar
  8. Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran. 1994. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(3): 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers, S. 2004. Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, S.G., and D.E. Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management 23(3): 239–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, F.B., and E.H. Tiller. 1998. Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the federal courts of appeals. Yale Law Journal 107(7): 2155–2176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawkins, R., and J.R. Krebs. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 205(1161): 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Vries, M., C.L. Witteman, R.W. Holland, and A. Dijksterhuis. 2010. The unconscious thought effect in clinical decision making: An Example in diagnosis. Medical Decision Making 30(5): 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denes-Raj, V., and S. Epstein. 1994. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(5): 819–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dessalles, J. 2007. Why we talk: The evolutionary origins of language. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dienes, Z., and J. Perner. 1999. A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(05): 735–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dijksterhuis, A., M.W. Bos, A. van der Leij, and R.B. van Baaren. 2009. Predicting soccer matches after unconscious and conscious thought as a function of expertise. Psychological Science 20(11): 1381–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dubreuil, B. 2010. Paleolithic public goods games: Why human culture and cooperation did not evolve in one step. Biology and Philosophy 25(1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunbar, K. 1995. How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In The nature of insight, ed. R.J. Sternberg and J. Davidson, 365–395. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Elster, J. 1995. Strategic uses of argument. In Barriers to conflict resolution, ed. K. Arrow, R. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, and R. Wilson, 236–257. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, J. 2002. Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128(6): 978–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, J. 2007. Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown: Boston.Google Scholar
  25. Green, K., J. Armstrong, and A. Graefe. 2007. Methods to elicit forecasts from groups delphi and prediction markets compared. MPRA paper no. 4663.Google Scholar
  26. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114(3): 704–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halberstam, D. 2001. The best and the brightest. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  28. Heesacker, M., R. Petty, and J. Cacioppo. 1983. Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality 51(4): 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hinds, P.J. 1999. The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 5: 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hrdy, S. 2009. Mothers and others. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  31. Janis, I.L. 1982. Groupthink, vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  32. Koriat, A., S. Lichtenstein, and B. Fischhoff. 1980. Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory and Cognition 6: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krebs, J.R., and R. Dawkins. 1984. Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation? In Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, vol. 2, ed. J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, 390–402. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, D. 1991. The Skills of arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurzban, R., and A. Aktipis. 2007. Modularity and the social mind: Are psychologists too self-ish? Personality and Social Psychology Review 11(2): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laughlin, P., and A. Ellis. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22: 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liberman, K. 2004. Dialectical practice in Tibetan philosophical culture: An ethnomethodological inquiry into formal reasoning. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Lombardelli, C., J. Proudman, and J. Talbot. 2005. Committees versus individuals: An experimental analysis of monetary policy decision-making. International Journal of Central Banking 1(May): 181–205.Google Scholar
  39. Lord, C., L. Ross, and M. Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11): 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mamede, S., H.G. Schmidt, R.M. Rikers, E.J. Custers, T.A. Splinter, and J.L. van Saase. 2010. Conscious thought beats deliberation without attention in diagnostic decision-making: At least when you are an expert. Psychological Research 74(6): 586–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mercier, H. In press a. Our pigheaded core: How we became smarter to be influenced by other people. In Evolution, cooperation, and complexity, eds. B. Calcott, R. Joyce, and K. Sterelny. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mercier, H. In press b. Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
  43. Mercier, H. In press c. What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society.Google Scholar
  44. Mercier, H. 2011. On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture 11: 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mercier, H., and B.R. Strickland. Submitted. Evaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience.Google Scholar
  46. Mercier, H., and H. Landemore. In press. Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology.Google Scholar
  47. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In In two minds, ed. J. Evans and K. Frankish. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011a. Argumentation: Its adaptiveness and efficacy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 94–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011b. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millar, M.G., and A. Tesser. 1986. Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2): 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moshman, D., and M. Geil. 1998. Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 4(3): 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munro, G.D., P.H. Ditto, L.K. Lockhart, A. Fagerlin, M. Gready, and E. Peterson. 2002. Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 US presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 24(1): 15–26.Google Scholar
  53. Novaes, C.D. 2005. Medieval Obligationes as logical games of consistency maintenance. Synthese 145(3): 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petty, R., J. Cacioppo, and R. Goldman. 1981. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5): 847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pomerantz, E.M., S. Chaiken, and R.S. Tordesillas. 1995. Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Resnick, L.B., M. Salmon, C.M. Zeitz, S.H. Wathen, and M. Holowchak. 1993. Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction 11(3/4): 347–364.Google Scholar
  57. Revesz, R.L. 1997. Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the DC Circuit. Virginia Law Review 83(8): 1717–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rowe, G., and G. Wright. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15(4): 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shafir, E., I. Simonson, and A. Tversky. 1993. Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2): 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, vol. 2. London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  61. Sperber, D. 2000. Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, ed. D. Sperber, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sperber, D. 2001. An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics 29: 401–413.Google Scholar
  63. Sperber, D., F. Clément, C. Heintz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi, and D. Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance 25(4): 359–393.Google Scholar
  64. Stanovich, K. 2004. The robot’s rebellion. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sterelny, K. In press. The fate of the third chimpanzee. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Taber, C., and M. Lodge. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tedeschi, J.T., R.B. Schlenker, and T.V. Bonoma. 1971. Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist 26(8): 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tesser, A., and M.C. Conlee. 1975. Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(2): 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tesser, A., and C. Leone. 1977. Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(4): 340–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tetlock, P. 2005. Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tomasello, M., M. Carpenter, J. Call, T. Behne, and H. Moll. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5): 675–691.Google Scholar
  72. Tooby, J., and L. Cosmides. 1992. The psychological foundations of culture. In The adapted mind, ed. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, 19–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vinokur, A., and E. Burnstein. 1974. Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29(3): 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vygotsy, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, T.D., and S.J. LaFleur. 1995. Knowing what you’ll do: Effects of analyzing reasons on self-prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(1): 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy, Politics and Economics ProgramUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations