Skip to main content

Deliberation

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible
  • 134 Accesses

Abstract

Deliberation involves the interpersonal exchange and evaluation of reasons and counter-reasons, in which each party attempts to rationally persuade the others, rather than manipulating or bargaining with them. This group deliberation is crucial for the generation of epistemic goods, such as knowledge and reasonable beliefs, given that it helps us eradicate possible errors. But it is a familiar fact that groups often perform suboptimally and indeed only under particular conditions deliberative groups can tap this epistemic potential and in turn avoid deliberative distortions, such as polarization and domination. This entry then focuses on certain positive epistemic possibilities that group deliberation can foster and on certain structural and personal conditions that enable such potential. Regarding the structural conditions, the deliberative group needs to instantiate some cognitive diversity concerning opinions, knowledge, and skills. Regarding the personal conditions, the individual deliberators need to possess an intellectually humble and autonomous character.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, J. (2016). Listening: Attitudes, principles and skills (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownstein, M., & Saul, J. (2016). Implicit bias and philosophy (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Brasi, L. (2020a). Argumentative deliberation and the development of intellectual humility and autonomy in the classroom. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation, 12(1), 13–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Brasi, L. (2020b). Judicial decisions, intellectual virtues and the division of labour. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 24(2), 142–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. D. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, E. (2006). Testimony and epistemic autonomy. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 225–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Han, U., Harris, A., & Corner, A. (2009). Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic, 29(4), 337–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, D. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Miller, D. (2004). Gender, perceived competence and power displays examining verbal interruptions in a group context. Small Group Research, 35, 407–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, I. (2016). Educating for intellectual humility. In J. Baehr (Ed.), Intellectual virtues and education (pp. 54–70). Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M., Druckman, J., & McLain, A. (2016). How group discussions create strong attitudes and strong partisans. Research and Politics, 3, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H. (2017). Confirmation bias – myside bias. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (pp. 99–114). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. London: Allen Lane.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D., & Brown, K. S. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paluck, E., & Green, D. P. (2009). Deference, dissent and dispute resolution. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 622–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., van der Zeer, K. I., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2019). Diversity and group creativity. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), The oxford handbook of group creativity and innovation (pp. 33–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perloff, R. (2017). The dynamics of persuasion (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohlhaus, G. (2017). Varieties of epistemic injustice. In I. Kidd et al. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice (pp. 13–26). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the support of Fondecyt 1210724.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leandro De Brasi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

De Brasi, L. (2022). Deliberation. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_198

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics