BonnefonJ.F.VillejoubertG. (2006). Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science, 17, 747–751.
2.
BovensL.RabinowiczW. (2006). Democratic answers to complex questions – an epistemic perspective. Synthese, 150, 131–153.
3.
BrennanG. (2001). Collective coherence?International Review of Law and Economics, 21, 197–211.
4.
ChapmanB. (1998). More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational social choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 293–329.
HastieR.KamedaT. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.
7.
KamedaT. (1991). Procedural influence in small-group decision making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 245–256.
8.
ListC. (2003). A possibility theorem on aggregation over multiple interconnected propositions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 45, 1–13.
9.
ListC. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 24, 3–32.
10.
ListC. (2006). The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics, 116, 362–402.
11.
ListC.PettitP. (2002). Aggregating judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89–110.
MacCounR.J.KerrN.L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
14.
PettitP. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11, 268–299.
