Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning |
| |
Authors: | Hugo Mercier Emmanuel Trouche Hiroshi Yama Christophe Heintz Vittorio Girotto |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Cognitive Science Center, Université de Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerlandhugo.mercier@gmail.com;3. CNRS &4. Université Lyon 1, Bron, France;5. Department of Psychology, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan;6. Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary;7. Center for Experimental Research in Management and Economics, University IUAV of Venice, Venice, Italy |
| |
Abstract: | Many fields of study have shown that group discussion generally improves reasoning performance for a wide range of tasks. This article shows that most of the population, including specialists, does not expect group discussion to be as beneficial as it is. Six studies asked participants to solve a standard reasoning problem—the Wason selection task—and to estimate the performance of individuals working alone and in groups. We tested samples of U.S., Indian, and Japanese participants, European managers, and psychologists of reasoning. Every sample underestimated the improvement yielded by group discussion. They did so even after they had been explained the correct answer, or after they had had to solve the problem in groups. These mistaken intuitions could prevent individuals from making the best of institutions that rely on group discussion, from collaborative learning and work teams to deliberative assemblies. |
| |
Keywords: | Reasoning Group problem solving Argumentation Intuitions about argumentation |
|
|