Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Open accessAbstract
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 o…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Human explanations may be geared more towards convincing others or supporting their own beliefs, rather than accurately reflecting the true causes of decisions.
“Human explanations may be geared more towards convincing others or supporting their own beliefs, rather than accurately reflecting the true causes of decisions (Mercier and Sperber, 2011).”
From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Mercier and Sperber, 2011
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Fricker, M. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 · Cited by 9,198 · see citing works
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · see citing works
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00076512 · Cited by 8,743 · see citing works
Cognitive maps in rats and men
Tolman, E. C. (1948) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0061626 · Cited by 6,641 · see citing works
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · see citing works
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540 · see citing works
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137 · see citing works
Pretense and representation: The origins of "theory of mind."
Leslie, A. M. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.4.412 · Cited by 3,379 · see citing works
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 · Cited by 2,573 · see citing works
Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective
Bechara, A. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1584 · Cited by 2,149 · see citing works
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.1.101 · Cited by 2,112 · see citing works
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., Brewer, L. E., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325 · Cited by 1,297 · see citing works
Object perception as Bayesian inference
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005 · Cited by 1,269 · see citing works
ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity
Leslie, A. M. (1994) · Mapping the Mind · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752902.006 · Cited by 1,105 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, Leslie & Keeble, 1987 ; Spelke & Kinzler, 2007) or naive psychology (e.g., Buttelmann, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2009; Csibra, Gergely, Bíró, Koós, & Brockbank, 1999; Leslie, 1994; Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005; Surian, Caldi, & Sperber, 2007).”
Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Okada, E. M. (2005) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889 · Cited by 1,069 · see citing works
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052 · see citing works
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Stanovich, K. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 · Cited by 1,041 · see citing works
An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning
Osman, M. (2004) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196730 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00003-1 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091721 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620939054 · Cited by 1,715 · see citing works
Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000465 · Cited by 1,268 · see citing works
KING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055417000144 · Cited by 1,028 · see citing works
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947 · see citing works
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines.
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000729 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system
Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B., & Prévost, C. (2015) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00055 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413510932 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
The role of metacognition in human social interactions
Frith, C. D. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0123 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1547 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility
Porter, T., Elnakouri, A., Meyers, E. A., Shibayama, T., Jayawickreme, E., & Grossmann, I. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Schwardmann, P., & van der Weele, J. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey
Hall, L., Johansson, P., & Strandberg, T. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045457 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength
Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0549-2 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Edgerly, S., Mourão, R. R., Thorson, E., & Tham, S. M. (2020) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699019864680 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-deception facilitates interpersonal persuasion
Smith, M. K., Trivers, R., & von Hippel, W. (2017) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2017.02.012 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04388 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/29b4j · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Bell, V., Raihani, N., & Wilkinson, S. (2021) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702620951553 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Scaffolded Memory and Metacognitive Feelings
Arango-Muñoz, S. (2013) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-012-0124-1 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Sterelny, K. (2018) · Religion, Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2017.1323779 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
(Hans) Korteling, J. E., & Toet, A. (2022) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.24105-9 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard
Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.006 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
When cognition turns vicious: Heuristics and biases in light of virtue epistemology
Samuelson, P. L., & Church, I. M. (2015) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.904197 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Wheeler, M. A., & Laham, S. M. (2016) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167216653374 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Contextual Debiasing and Critical Thinking: Reasons for Optimism
Correia, V. (2018) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9388-x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
How Psychological Dispositions Influence the Theology of the Afterlife
De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2017) · The Palgrave Handbook of the Afterlife · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-48609-7_22 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Reed, D. K. (2015) · RMLE Online · doi:10.1080/19404476.2015.11462119 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Levy, N. (2021) · Bad Beliefs · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895325.003.0005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
Zhu, X., Zhang, C., Chi, Y., Stafford, T., Collier, N., & Vlachos, A. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1694 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-03-29
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 57-74
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2104256533
- Cited by
- 2,254
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 110 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 144 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 177 · 2021: 221 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 256 · 2018: 162 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 148 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 82
- FWCI
- 248.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- argumentation, persuasion, confirmation bias, epistemic distortion, decision-making, misinformation, motivated reasoning, belief persistence
- MeSH terms
- Choice Behavior, Cognition, Concept Formation, Decision Making, Biological Evolution, Humans, Problem Solving, Psychological Theory, Thinking, Knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
