Effects of Forced Exposure to a Hypothetical Population on False Consensus

Abstract

Participants were forced to view a hypothetical population of 30 bogus students. Later, participants estimated consensus for 10 traits in this predefined population. On the false consensus effect (FCE) measure (estimates from those who exemplify the trait contrasted with estimates from those who do not), false consensus was observed. On the accuracy measure (estimates compared with actual consensus), estimates regressed inward. A week delay between the forced viewing and consensus estimates enhanced the regression effect but did not affect the FCE measure. The fact that false consensus obtained under forced viewing demonstrates for the first time that social projection can occur in the absence of selective exposure. The fact that the two measures diverged argues against their equivalence as false consensus measures.

Return of the ego--Self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: Comment on Karniol (2003).

“…In the laboratory, suppression is induced by making participants understand that their self-referent knowledge is irrelevant for the predictions at hand. Then, residual correlations between self and prediction can be attributed to incomplete suppression (Kulig, 2000). One study showed how selfreferent knowledge can intrude into predictions regarding other people's consensus estimates (Krueger & Zeiger, 1993).…”

Prejudiced People Perceive More Community Support for Their Views: The Role of Own, Media, and Peer Attitudes in Perceived Consensus

“…False consensus is also indexed through accuracy of perception (Kulig, 2000). Here, participants' estimates of the prevalence of an attitude or behavior are compared with its actual prevalence in the community, estimated from sample data.…”

“…Interestingly, people are quite accurate at estimating community norms when given information on the entire population, but even under those circumstances have been found to show a small false consensus effect (Kulig, 2000). This means that selective exposure, which is the most common cognitive explanation for the false consensus effect, cannot fully explain the false consensus effect.…”

What's in a name? Our false uniqueness!

“…This regression effect was proposed by Mullen and Hu (), and discussed in detail by de la Haye (). Its effect has been called a ‘contraction bias’ in psycho‐physical research (Poulton, ; chapter 7) and Kulig () induced the regression effect in an experimental version of a false consensus paradigm. For these reasons, consensus effects are best studied in a between‐subjects paradigm, which does not suffer from regression effects.…”