Differential Construal as an Explanation for False Consensus and False Uniqueness Effects.

Bosveld, Willem; Koomen, Willem; Pligt, J. van der; Plaisier, J.W.

doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1023

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a person' s estimate of the proportion of people who enjoy driving would depend on whether that person imagines, for instance, driving an expensive, open top car along a clear stretch of country road in the summer, or stuck in rush hour traYc in an unreliable car with a leaky roof during winter. The research ® ndings from Gilovich (1990) and Bosveld et al (1996) both suggest that diVerential construal is capable of explaining FCEs.…”

Section: False Consensusmentioning

confidence: 90%

The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a critical review of social contextual and group biases that are relevant to team decision-making in command and control situations. Motivated by the insuYcient level of attention this area has received, the purpose of the paper is to provide an insight into the potential that these types of biases have to aVect the decision-making of such teams. The biases considered are: false consensus, groupthink, group polarization and group escalation of commitment. For each bias the following four questions are addressed. What is the descriptive nature of the bias? What factors induce the bias? What psychological mechanisms underlie the bias? What is the relevance of the bias to command and control teams? The analysis suggests that these biases have a strong potential to aVect team decisions. Consistent with the nature of team decision-making in command and control situations, all of the biases considered tend to be associated with those decisions that are important or novel and are promoted by time pressure and high levels of uncertainty. A concept unifying these biases is that of the shared mental model, but whereas false consensus emanates from social projection tendencies, the rest emanate from social in¯uence factors. The authors also discuss the`tricky' distinction between teams and groups and propose a revised de® nition for command and control team. Finally, the authors emphasize the need for future empirical research in this area to pay additional attention to the social side of cognition and the potential that social biases have to aVect team decision-making.

show abstract

Section: False Consensusmentioning

confidence: 90%

The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, Gilovich showed that these different construals were associated with different consensus estimates, more positive construals leading to higher estimates of consensus than more negative construals. However, whereas Gilovich has shown the relevance of construal processes for the occurrence of a FCE, Bosveld et al (1995) showed that construal processes may also explain a FUE. In their study subjects were primed with positive or negative construals of the category of stand-up comedians, and it was shown that when they provided estimates for reference groups that were associated with negative construals (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…With respect to the explanations for the FCE and the FUE, it is important to note that most of the factors supposed to underlie the FCE cannot explain the FUE and vice versa. However, as suggested by Bosveld, Koomen, Van der Pligt and Plaisier (1995) one of the mechanisms that may provide such an integrative framework can be differential construal (e.g. Gilovich, 1990;Griffin & Ross, 1991;Ross et al, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Estimating group size: effects of category membership, differential construal and selective exposure

Bosveld

Koomen²,

Pligt³

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the false consensus effect suggests that there is no strong discrepancy between own choices and predictions of others' choices and thereby suggests that (1) first making predictions about others' choices will not affect own choices and (2) own choices will not affect subsequent predictions about others' choices. Alternatively, the false uniqueness effect states that people think that their own preferences are relatively uncommon (Bosveld et al 1995). Yet, it does not say whether people think they are more or less risk averse than others.…”

Section: False Consensus and False Uniquenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving one’s choices by putting oneself in others’ shoes – An experimental analysis

Rohde

Wakker

2017

J Risk Uncertain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates how letting people predict others' choices under risk affects subsequent own choices. We find an improvement of strong rationality (risk neutrality) for losses in own choices, but no such improvement for gains. There is no improvement of weak rationality (avoiding preference reversals). Overall, risk aversion in own choices increases. Conversely, for the effects of own choices on predicting for others, the risk aversion predicted in others' choices is reduced if preceded by own choices, for both gains and losses. Remarkably, we find a new probability matching paradox at the group level. Relative to preceding studies on the effects of predicting others' choices, we added real incentives, pure framing effects, and simplicity of stimuli. Our stimuli were maximally targeted towards our research questions.

show abstract

Differential Construal as an Explanation for False Consensus and False Uniqueness Effects.

Cited by 23 publications

References 33 publications

The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms

The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms

Estimating group size: effects of category membership, differential construal and selective exposure

Improving one’s choices by putting oneself in others’ shoes – An experimental analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About