Pluralistic ignorance occurs when group members mistakenly believe others’ cognitions and/or behaviors are systematically different from their own. More than 20 years have passed since the last review of pluralistic ignorance from a psychological framework, with more than 60 empirical articles assessing pluralistic ignorance published since then. Previous reviews took an almost entirely conceptual approach with minimal review of methodology, making existing reviews outdated and limited in the extent to which they can provide guidelines for researchers. The goal of this review is to evaluate and integrate the literature on pluralistic ignorance, clarify important conceptual issues, identify inconsistencies in the literature, and provide guidance for future research. We provide a comprehensive definition for the phenomenon, with a focus on its status as a group-level phenomenon. We highlight three areas of variation in particular in the current scoping review: variation in topics assessed, variation in measurement, and (especially) variation in methods for assessing the implications of individual-level misperceptions that, in aggregate, lead to pluralistic ignorance. By filling these gaps in the literature, we ultimately hope to motivate further analysis of the phenomenon.

Various efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates have been employed in the United States. We sought to rapidly investigate public reactions to these efforts to increase vaccination, including self-reported responses to widespread reduced masking behavior, monetary incentive programs to get vaccinated, and work vaccination requirements. Using a unique method for data collection (Random Domain Intercept Technology), we captured a large (N = 14,152), broad-based sample of the United States Web-using population (data collected from June 30 –July 26, 2021). About 3/4 of respondents reported being vaccinated. The likelihood of vaccination and vaccination intention differed across various demographic indicators (e.g., gender, age, income, political leaning). We observed mixed reactions to efforts aimed at increasing vaccination rates among unvaccinated respondents. While some reported that specific efforts would increase their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 16% and 32%), others reported that efforts would decrease their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 17% and 42%). Reactions differed by general vaccination intention, as well as other demographic indicators (e.g., race, education). Our results highlight the need to fully understand reactions to policy changes, programs, and mandates before they are communicated to the public and employed. Moreover, the results emphasize the importance of understanding how reactions differ across groups, as this information can assist in targeting intervention efforts and minimizing potentially differential negative impact.

No abstract

Defensive processes may be defined as an underlying series of mental operations, occurring primarily outside of a person’s awareness, that result in either (1) an experience being recorded in memory in such a way that it is remembered as being more pleasant or less threatening than it actually was, or (2) threatening experiences becoming inaccessible to future conscious recall. Defensive processes were initially conceptualized by Freud as basic unconscious mechanisms serving to shield the conscious mind from painful truths. Today, research on defensive processes focuses more on the social and cognitive processes that are associated with defensiveness, as well as on whether particular individuals are more likely to engage in defensive behaviors. The first section of this article, Defense Mechanisms, describes the initial Freudian origins of the concept of defensiveness, introduces some general reviews of the literature, discusses the scientific basis for defense mechanisms, and reviews critiques and controversies that have surrounded these concepts. The next section, Information Processing, describes research on perceptual defense, which has examined what cognitive processes play a role in the speed and accuracy with which emotional information is processed. The section Defensiveness in Relation to Anxiety, Social Desirability, and Terror Management describes extant research on individual differences in anxiety and social desirability, and highlights the defensive processes underlying terror management. These programs of research emphasize both universal tenets of defensiveness and defensiveness as as something that varies between people. Those individual differences are then used to predict differences in the way persons behave. The article concludes with a summary of research on Defensive Repressors, individuals who demonstrate high levels of defensiveness and low levels of anxiety; Vigilance-Avoidance Theory, a framework for understanding how these individuals process information; and Terror Management Theory, a theory positing that defensive processing stems from an awareness and fear of death and dying.

No abstract