Anchoring in Deliberations

Erkenntnis 85:1041-1069 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Deliberation is a standard procedure to make decisions in not too large groups. It has the advantage that the group members can learn from each other and that, at the end, often a consensus emerges that everybody endorses. But a deliberation procedure also has a number of disadvantages. E.g., what consensus is reached usually depends on the order in which the different group members speak. More specifically, the group member who speaks first often has an unproportionally high impact on the final decision: She anchors the deliberation process. While the anchoring effect undoubtably appears in real deliberating groups, we ask whether it also appears in groups whose members are truth-seeking and rational in the sense that they take the information provided by their fellow group members properly into account by updating their beliefs according to plausible rules. To answer this question and to make some progress towards explaining the anchoring effect, a formal model is constructed and analyzed. Using this model, we study the anchoring effect in homogenous groups, for which we provide analytical results, and in inhomogeneous groups, for which we provide simulation results.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Preaching to the choir or converting the uninitiated? The integrative potential of in-group deliberations.George Vasilev - 2013 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16 (1):109-129.
Group Identity, Deliberative Democracy and Diversity in Education.Sheron Fraser-Burgess - 2012 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (5):480-499.
Social Action in Large Groups.Ulrich Baltzer - 2003 - ProtoSociology 18:127-136.
Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek's challenge to Habermas).Cass R. Sunstein - 2011 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 192-213.
What Is Justified Group Belief.Jennifer Lackey - 2016 - Philosophical Review Recent Issues 125 (3):341-396.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-01-12

Downloads
70 (#224,929)

6 months
14 (#151,397)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Stephan Hartmann
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München
Soroush Rafiee Rad
Tilburg University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Models in Science (2nd edition).Roman Frigg & Stephan Hartmann - 2021 - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Reflection and disagreement.Adam Elga - 2007 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.
Peer disagreement and higher order evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2011 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 183--217.
Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

View all 24 references / Add more references