We present a game-theoretic model of the social dynamics of belief change in which the (relevant) logically non-omniscient audience becomes convinced that the speakers' messages are `true' because its own prior beliefs logically entail them, rather than — as in cheap-talk models — because the speaker is (endogenously) trustworthy. We characterize the equilibria of the game and consider how their aggregate informational properties change with the variation in the institutions determining the ability of the speakers to reach their audience. We find that for plausible restrictions on the distribution of arguments and on the corresponding policy preferences in society, the informationally optimal institutions are first-best implementable, inegalitarian with respect to the resource allocation across speakers, and assign priority to the (more) extreme argument- and policy-holders.
Aragones, Enriqueta, Itzhak Gilboa, Andrew Postlewaite and David Schmeidler (2001) `Rhetoric and Analogies', Mimeo, Tel-Aviv University.
2.
Austen-Smith, David (1990) `Information Transmission in Debate', American Journal of Political Science34(1): 124—52.
3.
Austen-Smith, David and Timothy Feddersen (2002) `Deliberation and Voting Rules', Mimeo, Northwestern University.
4.
Baron, David P. (2003) `Private Politics', Journal of Economics & Management Strategy12(1): 31—66.
5.
Baron, Jonathan (1994) Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bohman, James and William Rehg (eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
Calvert, Randall and James Johnson ( 1998) `Rational Actors, Political Reasons and Democratic Deliberation', Mimeo, University of Rochester.
8.
Christiano, Thomas (1997) `The Significance of Public Deliberation', in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 243—78. Cambridge: MIT Press .
9.
Cohen, Joshua (1997) `Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy', in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 67—92. Cambridge: MIT Press .
10.
Crawford, Vincent and Joel Sobel ( 1982) `Strategic Information Transmission', Econometrica50, 1431—51.
11.
Dawes, Robyn M. (1998) `Behavioral Decision Making and Judgment', in D. T. Gilbert et al. (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., pp.497—548. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
12.
Dickson, Eric, Catherine Hafer and Dimitri Landa (2005) `Cognition and Strategy: A Deliberation Experiment', Mimeo, New York University.
13.
Donnelly, David, Janice Fine and Ellen Miller (1997) `Going Public ', Boston Review22(2)
14.
Elster, Jon (ed) (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Fearon, James D. (1998) `Deliberation as Discussion', in J.Elster (ed.) Deliberative Democracy, pp. 44—68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Føllesdal, Dagfinn (1982[1994]) `The Status of Rationality Assumptions in Interpretation and Explanation of Action', Dialectica36: 301—16.
17.
Geanakoplos, John (1989) Games Theory Without Partitions, and Applications to Speculation and Consensus, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 914.
18.
Gerardi, Dino and Leeat Yariv ( 2002) `Putting Your Mouth Where Your Mouth Is: An Analysis of Collective Choice with Communication', Mimeo, Yale University .
19.
Goldberg, Jonah (2003) `Springfield vs. Shelbyville: Gay Marriage, Incest, and The Simpsons', National Review Online, July 1 2003. Available at http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg070103.asp
20.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis F. Thompson (1996) Democracy and Disagreement . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Habermas, Jürgen (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Habermas, Jürgen (1996) `Popular Sovereignty as Procedure', in J. Habermas and W. Rehg, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , pp. 491—515. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Hafer, Catherine and Dimitri Landa ( 2005) `Deliberation, Ideological Bias, and Group Choice', Mimeo , New York University.
24.
Hurley, Susan (2000) `Cognitivism in Political Philosophy', in R. Crisp and B. Hooker (eds) Well-Being and Morality, pp. 177—209. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
25.
Johnson, James (1998) `Arguing for Deliberation: Some Skeptical Considerations ', in J. Elster (ed) Deliberative Democracy, pp. 161—84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Kennedy, Randall (1999) `Racial Profiling Usually Isn't Racist. It Can Help Stop Crime. And It Should Be Abolished', New Republic , September 13, 1999.
27.
Landa, Dimitri (2006) ` Rational Choices as Social Norms', Journal of Theoretical Politics18(4): 434—53.
28.
Lord, C.G., L. Ross and M.R. Lepper (1979) `Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37: 2098—109.
29.
Lupia, Arthur (2002) `Deliberation Disconnected: What It Takes to Improve Civic Competence', Law and Contemporary Problems65(3): 133—50.
30.
Macedo, Stephen (ed.) (2000) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
Mackie, Gerry (1998) `All Men Are Liars: Is Democracy Meaningless?' in J. Elster (ed.) Deliberative Democracy, pp. 69—96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Manin, Bernard (1987) `On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation', Political Theory15(3): 338—68.
33.
Meirowitz, Adam (2007) `In Defense of Exclusionary Deliberation: Communication and Voting with Private Beliefs and Values', Journal of Theoretical Politics19(3): 301—27.
34.
Mill, John Stuart (S. Collini , ed.) (1989) On Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Rabin, Matthew (1998) `Psychology and Economics', Journal of Economic Literature36 (March): 11—46.
36.
Rabin, Matthew and Joel L. Schrag (1999) `First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias', The Quarterly Journal of Economics (February): 37—82.
37.
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Sunstein, Cass (2002) `The Law of Group Polarization', Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 175—95.
39.
Tetlock, Philip E. (1992) `The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward a Social Contingency model', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25: 331—76.
40.
Wason, P.C. (1968) `Reasoning about a Rule', Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology20: 273—81.
41.
Wason, P.C. (1977) `Self-Contradictions', in P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (eds) Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, pp. 114—28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Wood, Genevieve (2003) National Public Radio Morning Edition, 4 September 2003.
43.
Zaller, John (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
