Pluralistic Ignorance Research in Psychology: A Scoping Review of Topic and Method Variation and Directions for Future Research

Abstract

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reviews took an almost entirely conceptual approach with minimal review of methodology, making existing reviews outdated and limited in the extent to which they can provide guidelines for researchers.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.

Social norms misperception among voters in the 2020 US presidential election

“…We predicted that at time 1, Republican supporters showed significantly higher approval than Democrat supporters for xenophobic statements and agreement estimation from “the wider American public”. To approach this, we first examined within effects (cf., Luzsa & Mayr, 2021; Sargent & Newman, 2021) by plotting and calculating the correlation between own approval and estimated agreement per party, followed by examining between‐group effects (cf., Watts & Larkin, 2010).…”

“…We predicted that at time 1, Republican supporters showed significantly higher approval than Democrat supporters for xenophobic statements and agreement estimation from "the wider American public". To approach this, we first examined within effects (cf., Luzsa & Mayr, 2021;Sargent & Newman, 2021) by plotting and calculating the correlation between own approval and estimated agreement per party, followed by examining between-group effects (cf., Watts & Larkin, 2010). The strength of association between approval for the necessity of harsh measures against immigrants and refugees and estimated agreement was stronger (and significant) for Republicans (r = .30, p = 0.03) than for Democrats (r = .07, p = 0.51), Figure 2A.…”

“…PI is group‐based and own norms therefore always have to be measured in the context of perceived norms from a meaningful ingroup (cf. Sargent & Newman, 2021).…”

“…Though, the literature is somewhat inconsistent about how to measure FC: Since FC is considered individual‐based (cf. Sargent & Newman, 2021), some scholars see FC as present when own approval and perceived approval from others are associated (cf. Luzsa & Mayr, 2021), while others refer to the “traditional way,” comparing the strength of agreement perception between opposing stances (between‐group measurement; cf.…”

From Seats at the Table to Voices in the Discussion: Antecedents of Underrepresented Director Participation in Board Meetings

“…First, giving us a better understanding of individual director participation in board meetings (Pettigrew, 1992), our findings concerning the antecedents of individual director discussion participation suggests ‘why’ underrepresented directors may continue to participate less in board meetings, even when presented with a ‘seat at the table’. Moreover, we can better understand the mechanisms by which heterogeneous boards often suffer from pluralistic ignorance or ‘the illusion of universality’ (Sargent and Newman, 2021, p. 163). Indeed, the ‘hesitancy of group members to voice minority opinions’ is at least one driver of pluralistic ignorance (Westphal and Bednar, 2005, p. 265).…”