New article from Jonas Stein about the effect of different argumentation styles on reaching group consensus

Congratulations to SCOOP PhD candidate Jonas Stein on his new article. 

In “Ill-informed Consensus or Truthful Disagreement? How Argumentation Styles and Preference Perceptions Affect Deliberation Outcomes in Groups with Conflicting Stakes,” published in Erkenntnis, Jonas and his co-authors – SCOOP colleagues Jan-Willem Romeijn and Michael Maes – studied the possibilities of reaching group consensus using different argumentation styles. They found that in high stake situations, cautiousness is needed to convince others. However, when the stakes are low, consensus is best reached through being pushy.

Jonas’ research project, “Reconciling epistemic and demographic diversity” studies how and under which conditions ‘epidemic diversity’ – the pool of knowledge, skills, and perspectives that emerges from a demographically diverse group of individuals – can lead to better outcomes in collective decision making. But despite the advantages, demographic diversity can also make it challenging for organisations, local communities, and larger political entities to build mutual trust, shared norms, and open communication. How can we make demographic diversity an asset within a group? Jonas is using existing theoretical models and experimental paradigms to find out.