CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Philosophical Ethics and TheoryPolitical Philosophy and EthicsGame Theory and Voting Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Must group agents be rational? List and Pettit’s theory of judgement aggregation and group agency.

Sugden, Robert·2012·Economics and Philosophy
DOI 10.1017/s0266267112000181
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a writing partnership, Christian List and Philip Pettit are probably best known for a paper in Economics and Philosophy that describes and generalizes the ‘discursive dilemma’ (List and Pettit 2002). That paper is one of the main points of reference for what is now a large literature on the aggregation of judgements – a literature to which List and Pettit have continued to contribute, individually and jointly. Their new book Group Agency reviews and synthesizes that body of work, and proposes an analysis of group agency in which the aggregation of judgements plays a central role.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266267112000181

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Given the three requirements, there is also room for genuinely collective and organizational forms of SI, whose subjects would be fully fledged group or corporate agents rather than collaborating individuals.

    “However, I contend that given our three requirements there is also room for genuinely collective and organizational forms of SI. The subjects of akrasia and self-deception would then not be collaborating individuals but fully fledged group or corporate agents (Pettit, 2003a; cf. Sugden, 2012).”

    From Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation (2017) · cites this paper as Sugden, 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sugden, R.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Sugden, Robert
ORCID
Sugden, Robert
Venue
Economics and Philosophy
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012-07
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
265-273
ISSN
  • 0266-2671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-0028
DOI
10.1017/s0266267112000181
OpenAlex
W2157865032
Cited by
2
References
6
Citations by year
2017: 1 · 2016: 1
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 59 d)
Locations
  • Economics and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
collective agency, judgment aggregation, discursive dilemma, rationality, group decision making, social choice

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