Pluralistic ignorance: Conceptual framework, antecedents and consequences

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to present, in an integrated manner, the knowledge acquired about pluralistic ignorance in the fields of social psychology, sociology and business.Particularly, to identify the factors that work as antecedents of pluralistic ignorance, as well as its consequences, in various research contexts. Design/methodology:This integrative study on pluralistic ignorance was conducted with the Proknow-C method, which allows the construction of knowledge through a structured process of search and identification of a bibliographic portfolio. The systemic analysis resulted in a model with seven social comparison errors that can be seen as antecedents of ignorance and a framework with its consequences, divided into three categories: people's attitude, people's behavior and organizational capabilities.-781-Intangible Capital -https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1063 Research limitations/implications:As with every research review, identification and review of the literature depend on the authors' world view. One of the difficulties in researching pluralistic ignorance is that it is studied in different areas of knowledge and from different perspectives.Originality/value: The knowledge acquired throughout more than eight decades of research on pluralistic ignorance is fragmented into different perspectives. However, what was shown by the systemic analysis of the literature is that studies are more often geared toward psychosocial issues and it is still not very well known how the causes and consequences of pluralistic ignorance interact with the management processes in the organizational environment. This review presents a model for guiding the process of formation of pluralistic ignorance and a guiding framework for future research, as far as its consequences are concerned.

Bibliometric and systemic analysis of the relationship between management and carbon

“…By the strengthening of systemic analysis, different works have used this methodological tool to show not only the literature review but also the new opportunities in the field of research and particular topics (Caiado et al, 2017;Dutra et al, 2015;Ensslin et al, 2014;Garrigos-Simon, 2019;Mendes et al, 2017;Narangajavana-Kaosiri and Narangajavana, 2019;Viegas et al, 2016).…”

Authoritarians Go with the Flow: Social Norms Moderate the Link between Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Outgroup‐Directed Attitudes

“…Social norms can be understood as "shared patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior" (Hogg & Reid, 2006, p. 8) that regulate how people act by establishing what is "normal" and how one should behave (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). They can be differentiated into objective (e.g., official government policies) and subjective norms (i.e., people's perceptions of what the norms are; Mendes, Lopez-Valeiras, & Lunkes, 2017). 2 Allport (1954) has already argued that conformity constitutes a key mechanism of prejudice.…”

Whose Norms, Whose Prejudice? The Dynamics of Perceived Group Norms and Prejudice in New Secondary School Classes

“…The discrepancy between personal beliefs and perceptions of these has been studied for over 80 years, starting with Katz et al’s (1931) study documenting the rejection of black members from university fraternities based on the false perception of other members’ segregationist views. Pluralistic ignorance has been found in relation to a wide range of individual attitudes and perceived majority attitudes, including the acceptance of racial segregation ( O’Gorman, 1975 , 1979 ) and prejudice ( Bergmann, 1988 ; Váradi, 2014 ; for an overview see: Mendes et al, 2017 ). It can take the form of full misperception, when people believe that everyone else has the same opinion that is different from theirs, or, in less severe cases, people significantly over- or underestimate the public support of certain opinions and ideas ( Shamir and Shamir, 1997 ).…”