So everyone knows that the way to get someone's attention is to play hard to get. I was surprised to learn that social psychologists have an official term for the benefits of ignoring someone who interests you. The hard-to-get effect refers to the way in which people are more attracted to people whom they have to work harder to spend time with (Walster et al., 1973). Playing hard to get is always encouraged when someone has trouble getting the attention of the person they are interested in. However, because I am a woman, I am particularly exposed to this effect and I and all of my friends have used it to our advantage in many situations. One situation in particular stands out in my mind though. One of my friends knows a guy that works at a bar, and he also happens to be interested in her. She has known this guy, and known he is interested, for over a year. Everytime we go to this bar the guy walks up to say hello. I of course always say, "hey, here he comes!" She insists on pretending not to notice him until he is right in front of her face and always refuses to seek him out when we are there. I finally asked her what the big deal is. She told me "I have been slowly building up flirting with him for over a year and I'm not going to ruin it now. If I give him the attention he wants then he will forget about it and it won't be fun anymore. If I continue to ignore him though then he will continue to fall all over me." Very wise. She knew that she didn't want the attention to end and that the only way to prevent that was to maintain her allusiveness. It is a pretty extreme example- most people don't play hard to get for over a year- but it is continuing to work and he is contiuing to chase her around everytime she is in sight.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., Pilliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1973). "Playing hard-to-get": Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 113-121.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
POB Blog: IAT
After trying (and failing) to come up with a good, new idea for breaking a social norm, I decided instead to take the IATs, which turned out to be very interesting. Before I read about them, I was a little fuzzy on how the Implicit Associates Tests worked. The IATs measure associations we are unconscious of making by recording the speed with which we pair certain things. For example, in the test measuring preference for light-skinned or dark-skinned people, the word good and a picture of a light-skinned person appear on one side of the screen, and the word bad and a picture of a dark-skinned person appear on the other side. In one section of the test the subject is required to associate the word that pops up in the middle (which is a word associated with either good or bad) with one of the two groups. In the next section of the test the groups are switched and the word good is paired with the dark-skinned person while the word bad is paired with the light-skinned person. The subject is asked to complete the same task and the speed with which these associations are made is compared to the speed of the first task. The pairing that facilitated quicker and more accurate associations indicates preference. For example, if the subject more quickly made correct associations when the word good was paired with the dark-skinned person than it must be easier for the subject to draw a connection between these two, which demonstrates an implicit preference for dark-skinned people.
I took two IATs: one measuring preference for dark-skinned or light skinned people, and one measuring association between gender and family. My conscious preferences in both cases go against the values of my background. I took these tests because I wanted to prove to myself that I really am as unaffected by my surroundings as I like to think I am. While I grew up in Texas, surrounded by white people, and to be perfectly honest, a fair amount of racism, I not only do not consider myself racist but I actually prefer other ethnicities. I love latin culture: the food, the music, the art, the dancing, the language, the travelling, the drinks, the closeness of families, the traditions, the architecture, the men... In fact, I would say I enjoy the latin culture so much that I try as hard as possible to make myself part of it and to make it part of me. There is no getting around my irish heritage, but hair dye, time in the sun, and lots of spanish classes are helping some. Basically I figured, of course I prefer dark-skinned people to light-skinned people. There was a similar situation with the career-gender test. Ask any of my friends, I am destined to be the career woman who willingly gives up having a family to chase a high-power career. Not to say that there is anything wrong with wanting nothing more than to raise a family- I fully respect that desire, I just have no ability to understand or relate to it. The very thought makes me nervous. I frequently express my frustration with the number of young women concerned with finding a husband and starting a family before they even have a basic understanding of who they are or what they want out of life. I do think that there are some women, who after careful consideration, decide that having a family is what makes them most happy. But, I will not dissuaded from thinking that most (young) women so actively pursue having a family in an effort to avoid self examination. So needless to say, I assumed that I make a strong connection between women and careers, because I place so much personal importance on that relationship. Again, I took this IAT as a way of reassuring myself that a career really is extremely important to me, and because of this implicit drive, I will pursue my current goals no matter what obstacles I encounter.
Too bad I was completely wrong. The first test showed that I have a strong preference for light-skinned people and the second that I make a moderate association between males and career and females and family. Needless to say I was very surprised and disappointed. Actually, I made these discoveries as I was taking the tests. I could feel myself struggling more sorting the words when good was paired with the dark-skinned person than with the light-skinned person. I the gender-career test I had a much easier time sorting the words when family and female were paired and career and male were paired than when family and male were paired and career and female were paired. I could feel myself taking longer to make the connection and found it extremely frustrating because my preferences are opposite to what my implicit associations seem to be. I was very surprised to see that I have apperently adopted the same implicit tendencies that I disapprove of in others. To my conscious mind, it seems strange that one should prefer one shade of skin or one purpose per gender. Furthermore, if we do have preferences, mine are exactly opposite of these inherent associations. This made me think about my preferences and where they come from. I guess I always assumed that my preference for a career in my own life and my personal attraction toward darker skin meant that I approached them differently from the rest of society. Many people draw connections between females and family and males and careers because of gender role schemas. I thought that because I find females pursuing careers more appealing that I saw a different connection and was somehow immune to the effects of gender role schemas. Now that I know that I was wrong and that I actually do make the same connections as the rest of society I think that perhaps I am attracted to a career and to darker skin because it is not what people typically choose. I have a tendency to be less attracted to things that many other people are drawn to. What is interesting to me though is that despite my attraction I still make subconscious connections that are similar to connections everyone else is making.
This experience changes my understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. Because I was raised in a society where (no matter how prevelant it may be in certain obscure regions) racism is considered wrong and injust. I perceive making any distinction between people based on differences such as gender or race to be prejudicial and discriminatory. However I now see that making these connections may not be discriminatory but an example of ingroup favortism, which describes our tendency to show preference to members of our own group, (Capozza & Brown, 2000). This may explain why I, a light-skinned person, showed preference to other light-skinned people. I now see that noticing differences may not indicate prejudice or racism, but simply be a neutral human tendency. After reflecting about this I took the skin color test again and tried my hardest to answer oppositely. However, because you must give your first reaction and go very quickly, it is difficult to override your implicit reaction. This confirmed for me that the tests are very effective measure of implicit attitudes and that I really do prefer light-skinned people. Finally, to be perfectly honest, I wonder if I am not affected by the confirmation bias, the interpretation of data in a way that confirms pre-existing notions (Kassin, 120). I began this activity assuming that my scores would come out one way. When I was proven wrong, I found a way to explain them in a way that supported my belief that I am not racist or sexist. I wonder if my interpretations are accurate or if I am being influenced by the confirmation bias.
Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research. London: Sage.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
I took two IATs: one measuring preference for dark-skinned or light skinned people, and one measuring association between gender and family. My conscious preferences in both cases go against the values of my background. I took these tests because I wanted to prove to myself that I really am as unaffected by my surroundings as I like to think I am. While I grew up in Texas, surrounded by white people, and to be perfectly honest, a fair amount of racism, I not only do not consider myself racist but I actually prefer other ethnicities. I love latin culture: the food, the music, the art, the dancing, the language, the travelling, the drinks, the closeness of families, the traditions, the architecture, the men... In fact, I would say I enjoy the latin culture so much that I try as hard as possible to make myself part of it and to make it part of me. There is no getting around my irish heritage, but hair dye, time in the sun, and lots of spanish classes are helping some. Basically I figured, of course I prefer dark-skinned people to light-skinned people. There was a similar situation with the career-gender test. Ask any of my friends, I am destined to be the career woman who willingly gives up having a family to chase a high-power career. Not to say that there is anything wrong with wanting nothing more than to raise a family- I fully respect that desire, I just have no ability to understand or relate to it. The very thought makes me nervous. I frequently express my frustration with the number of young women concerned with finding a husband and starting a family before they even have a basic understanding of who they are or what they want out of life. I do think that there are some women, who after careful consideration, decide that having a family is what makes them most happy. But, I will not dissuaded from thinking that most (young) women so actively pursue having a family in an effort to avoid self examination. So needless to say, I assumed that I make a strong connection between women and careers, because I place so much personal importance on that relationship. Again, I took this IAT as a way of reassuring myself that a career really is extremely important to me, and because of this implicit drive, I will pursue my current goals no matter what obstacles I encounter.
Too bad I was completely wrong. The first test showed that I have a strong preference for light-skinned people and the second that I make a moderate association between males and career and females and family. Needless to say I was very surprised and disappointed. Actually, I made these discoveries as I was taking the tests. I could feel myself struggling more sorting the words when good was paired with the dark-skinned person than with the light-skinned person. I the gender-career test I had a much easier time sorting the words when family and female were paired and career and male were paired than when family and male were paired and career and female were paired. I could feel myself taking longer to make the connection and found it extremely frustrating because my preferences are opposite to what my implicit associations seem to be. I was very surprised to see that I have apperently adopted the same implicit tendencies that I disapprove of in others. To my conscious mind, it seems strange that one should prefer one shade of skin or one purpose per gender. Furthermore, if we do have preferences, mine are exactly opposite of these inherent associations. This made me think about my preferences and where they come from. I guess I always assumed that my preference for a career in my own life and my personal attraction toward darker skin meant that I approached them differently from the rest of society. Many people draw connections between females and family and males and careers because of gender role schemas. I thought that because I find females pursuing careers more appealing that I saw a different connection and was somehow immune to the effects of gender role schemas. Now that I know that I was wrong and that I actually do make the same connections as the rest of society I think that perhaps I am attracted to a career and to darker skin because it is not what people typically choose. I have a tendency to be less attracted to things that many other people are drawn to. What is interesting to me though is that despite my attraction I still make subconscious connections that are similar to connections everyone else is making.
This experience changes my understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. Because I was raised in a society where (no matter how prevelant it may be in certain obscure regions) racism is considered wrong and injust. I perceive making any distinction between people based on differences such as gender or race to be prejudicial and discriminatory. However I now see that making these connections may not be discriminatory but an example of ingroup favortism, which describes our tendency to show preference to members of our own group, (Capozza & Brown, 2000). This may explain why I, a light-skinned person, showed preference to other light-skinned people. I now see that noticing differences may not indicate prejudice or racism, but simply be a neutral human tendency. After reflecting about this I took the skin color test again and tried my hardest to answer oppositely. However, because you must give your first reaction and go very quickly, it is difficult to override your implicit reaction. This confirmed for me that the tests are very effective measure of implicit attitudes and that I really do prefer light-skinned people. Finally, to be perfectly honest, I wonder if I am not affected by the confirmation bias, the interpretation of data in a way that confirms pre-existing notions (Kassin, 120). I began this activity assuming that my scores would come out one way. When I was proven wrong, I found a way to explain them in a way that supported my belief that I am not racist or sexist. I wonder if my interpretations are accurate or if I am being influenced by the confirmation bias.
Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research. London: Sage.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Blog 8: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
Throughout our discussion of social influence, dissenters have been mentioned frequently, due to the large impact they can have on group behavior. Everytime Dr. G. says the word dissenter, my mind immediately jumps to Thomas. Each summer throughout college I worked at a summer camp in Austin with children ages 3-10. Last summer I worked a lot with the youngest group, 3 and 4 year olds. After spending even a short amount of time with that many children, you quickly learn the importance of order, as well as the chaos that can result from just one rebel. It is veryimportant that each child respects your authority and will get in line when you say to do so, because when he is about to jump into the deep end of the pool, though he is too little to swim, you want to know that when you say stop he won't pause to question your authority and risk drowning. Basically, maintaining control over the group is essential. Inherently there is always a troublemaker in each group, some worse than others. There is always at least one or two kids that really push your limits, no doubt testing you to make sure you the adult and capable of taking care of them. Over the years there have been some fairly memorable testers. However, no one will ever live up to Thomas. I was assigned to the youngest group toward the end of the summer and so I didn't interact directly with Thomas until after I had heard many stories. I spent most of the summer watching his tantrums from a distance. Thomas was this cute, chubby, short, blonde kid with big brown eyes, a bowl cut, and a really bad stutter. He looked a lot like a chunky Dennis the Menis (that's what I called him) and when you asked him his name he always said Thomas the Train. He wasn't what you'd picture as the troublemaker, he had a sweet disposition and was really pretty amusing. BUT, when you asked him to do something he didn't want to do, there was no way in hell he would obey. He would first ignore you, then run away, then after you finally caught him he would go limp and lay on the floor. If you threatened punishment he would burst into tears and screaming but still wouldn't obey. Despite the tantrums though, the most challenging part of dealing with Thomas was dealing with the rebellion he started among the other kids. Changing after swimming was always the worst. We'd have about 20 3 year-olds in a very small room, all incapable of dressing themselves, with about 10 minutes to change and only 2 or 3 counselors to help. Thomas made it even worse. He would run around distracting all the other kids from changing. I finally started getting the kids to sit down and look at a book after they changed but of course this would only hold Thomas for about 2 seconds and he'd be off to leading the changed kids into some kind of trouble. I realized pretty fast that Thomas was the main ingredient to getting the group to obey. If Thomas was calm and listening there was peace (even more so on days he didn't come). When he started causing trouble, it woudl take about 30 seconds for the whole group to be rioting. To maintain order in the group I had to exert 5% energy to keeping everyone calm and 95% energy went to Thomas and either keeping him calm or separate. So, everytime we mention the power of just one dissenter, I get this instant image of a room full of naked porkies (that's what we called their group- after Porky Pig) and Thomas running around with his shorts on his head causing a full-fledged 3 year-old rebellion. This situation is a perfect example of minority influence, the way in which a dissenter can cause change in a group, such as taking it from calm to chaotic, (De Dreu & De Vries, 2001; Hollander, 1985; Maass & Clark, 1984; Moscovici et al., 1985; Mugny & Perez, 1991).
De Dreu, C., & De Vries, N. (Eds.). (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. London: Blackwell.
Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 485-537). New York: Random House.
Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Van Avermaet, E. (Eds.). (1985). Perspective on minority influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1991). Social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Dreu, C., & De Vries, N. (Eds.). (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. London: Blackwell.
Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 485-537). New York: Random House.
Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Van Avermaet, E. (Eds.). (1985). Perspective on minority influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1991). Social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Blog 7: Cognitive Dissonance
Judging from the reading in the textbook, dieting seems to be a very popular example of cog dis. I'm going to be a bit unoriginal and do the same because I have a very good example. Everyone in my group of friends is fairly health conscious. That's not to say we don't get lazy sometimes and ignore the gym for a while, or have ice cream or mini pie parties... But, for the most part, we all try to eat fairly healthy things and be as active as we have time for. There are also extremes within the group. One of my friends is very careful about sugars and carbs, while another eats mostly pasta. It always seems like the pasta friend is hungry and (though she doesn't eat very large portions), she is always up for food- especially italian. The no-carb friend, on the other hand, is always conscious of what she has eaten that day. None of us really need to diet but we all sort of joke about it and so health is always kind of on our minds. There is a sort of expectancy to at least try to be healthy, and if you don't, to feel a little guilty. The pasta friend is always talking about wanting to eat or just having eaten. The no carb friend is always saying, jokingly, "that's not part of the diet." It has become a joke among our group of friends. Because health is important to all of us, this has become our gentle way of helping each other resist certain temptations and stay on track with food and exercise. We also get amusement out of it because everytime we eat, our pasta friend says something about how healthy she has eaten all week. We all turn to give her the "yah right" look and she always responds with "ok, well I did go to taco bell earlier today...twice" or "yah, well I did have Romeo's yesterday, and taquitos." She will then proceed to that she is little, after all, so what's the harm? Or she will mention her health problems and say who cares, I have to enjoy life! All of these (what I would previously have called) rationalizations are examples of ways of reducing cognitive dissonance. People are uncomfortable with inconsistancy (such as eating whataburger daily when trying to eat healthy), (Festinger, 1957), and so they make changes to their attitude or perception of behaviors or consequences of behavior in order to reduce this inconsistancy, (McKimmie et al., 2003 & Gosling et al., 2006). When my pasta friend claims that she has been eating healthily, flat-out ignoring all the whataburger, she is trying to reduce this inconsistancy because it is uncomfortable.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
Gosling, P., Denizeau, M., & Oberle, D. (2006). Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 722-733.
McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 214-224.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
Gosling, P., Denizeau, M., & Oberle, D. (2006). Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 722-733.
McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 214-224.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Blog 6: Attitude Change
I have a good recent example of psychological reactance, which is people's tendency to protect their freedom by taking steps to reinforce it when it is threatened (Wood & Quinn, 2003). The other day I got in a huge fight with one of my best friends. As all of my girlfriends are very close, like a family, everyone has been pretty upset that my bf and I haven't been speaking. They have all made attempts to talk to each of us and convince us to work things out. At first I got irritated when friend after friend approached me wanting to discuss things. Everyone knew I didn't want to talk about it because I needed time to think. Yet, every friend approached me, asserting that we needed to talk and that I needed to talk with my bf. Although I knew that I would have to work things out at some point, hearing that I must talk about it with anyone made me immediately want to talk about anything but the fight. Everytime a friend brought it up I found myself getting immediately irritated and defensive and responding adamently that I did NOT want to talk about it, even though I have been thinking about it almost non-stop. Then yesterday one of my friends called asking if she could come over later to ask me about spanish homework because we are in the same class. I said sure and when she came over we talked about spanish and a few other things. Before I knew it though we were talking about the fight. This time though, I found myself listening and actually discussing things with her. Because she didn't start out by announcing that we HAD to talk about things, my defenses didn't go up immediately. Because she used "reverse psychology" by claiming to want to talk about spanish, I was able to focus on what she was saying and not on protecting my right to decline to discuss things with her. In other words, unlike my other friends, this friend was able to avoid my psychological reactance by not forwarning me of her argument that I should talk to my bf and work things out. As a result, she was able to convince me and today everything got worked out.
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119-138.
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119-138.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Blog 5: Study of Attitudes
I feel like I grew up with a fairly balanced political and religious background, or at least unique. My mom grew up in a large Irish Catholic family, stop practicing as a young adult and became extremely liberal, and then slowly became conservative throughout my life. My dad was raised in Waco as a fundamentalist Baptist, moved to Austin and became a liberal hippie as soon as he could, and as he aged I think he became more liberal and more of an atheist. Therefore, I feel like I got a taste of most perspectives (plus I still had Catholic and Baptist family members influencing me from either side of the family). Somehow I turned out relatively conservative, and became increasingly conservative when I decided to be baptised Catholic (my mom also returned to the Church). There was great religious and political dichotomy in my family when I was in high school. My dad was a raging liberal and atheist and both my mom and I were fairly avid republicans and Catholics. College, however, changed everything. As supported by past and continuing research (the new Astin study), people tend to become more liberal in college. I sould have been a participant in Newcomb's (1943) study, because, in keeping with his findings, I started out fairly conservative and experienced a very liberal shift in my thinking. Now we just have to wait and see what happens after college! Prior to college, I firmly believed in God, and in the Catholic doctrine (well, most of it), I was not in favor of abortion, the death penalty, premarital sex, etc. Upon starting my college career though, I slowly began to question all of these beliefs. I stopped going to Church mostly because I couldn't find the time and because it seemed like most people didn't go. Then I realized one day that I didn't believe in original sin, and after that it was kind of downhill for Catholicism. After that I began to question my political beliefs. I felt more free to change my mind after deciding I wasn't a Catholic. I will admit, I'm still fiscally conservative and that probably won't change a whole lot. Socially though, I am light years more liberal than I ever could have imagined, and the most I can say spiritually is that I feel like there must be some kind of higher power, but that is pretty much the extent of my faith. So, as predicted by Newcomb, I have experienced a liberal shift in college, and I guess next year I'm supposed to start becoming slightly more conservative again? We'll see...
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student community. Ft. Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student community. Ft. Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Demonstrate A Concept: False Consensus Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdt1h8reVHA
I chose to demonstrate the false consensus effect by asking a few of my friends how they feel about several social issues and how many people they would estimate agree with them. Before I explain the false consensus effect and how this video is an example, let me first summarize the content of the film clip:
1st Question Asked: Are you pro-choice?
Respondent: Chloe
Answer: Yes
Estimate % pro-choice: 65-75%
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: No
Estimate % pro-choice: 35%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % pro-choice: 65%
Respondent: Nina
Answer: No
Estimate % pro-choice: 20%
2nd Question Asked: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: Nina
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 90%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 65%
Respondent: Chloe'
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 65%
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 85%
3rd Question Asked: Do you agree with the death penalty?
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: No
Estimate % agree: 30%
Respondent: Chloe'
Answer: Yes
Estimate % agree: 70%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % agree: 68%
Respondent: Nina
Answer: No
Estimate % agree: 25%
(Krueger, 2000)
The false-consensus effect is one of the two problems that can occur when using the availability heuristic. It describes the human tendency to overestimate how many people have the same attrbutes, opinions, and behaviors (Kruger, 1998; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). When it comes to opinions on social issues such as abortion, God, and the death penalty, the false consensus occurs when people who support abortion estimate than many others also support abortion, as well as when people who do not support the death penalty estimate that many others do not support the death penalty. The questions I asked in the video clip demonstrate this concept well. As Chloe' and Katie were pro-choice and in support of the death penalty, they predicted that the majority of the US population is also pro-choice and in support of the death penalty. In contrast, Nina and Rachel, who were not pro-choice and not in support of the death penalty, predicted that the minority of the US population is pro-choice and in support of the death penalty (meaning that they estimated that the majority of the population held beliefs similar to their own). The false consensus effect is an interesting phenomenon and is quite easily demonstrated, as seen by this example.
Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 30, 163-240.
Krueger, J. (2000). The projective perception of the social world: A building block of social comparison processes. In J. Suls & L. Wheller (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 323-351). New York: Plenum/Kluwer.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus phenomenon: An attributional bias in self-perception and social-perception processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
I chose to demonstrate the false consensus effect by asking a few of my friends how they feel about several social issues and how many people they would estimate agree with them. Before I explain the false consensus effect and how this video is an example, let me first summarize the content of the film clip:
1st Question Asked: Are you pro-choice?
Respondent: Chloe
Answer: Yes
Estimate % pro-choice: 65-75%
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: No
Estimate % pro-choice: 35%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % pro-choice: 65%
Respondent: Nina
Answer: No
Estimate % pro-choice: 20%
2nd Question Asked: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: Nina
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 90%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 65%
Respondent: Chloe'
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 65%
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: Yes
Estimate % believe: 85%
3rd Question Asked: Do you agree with the death penalty?
Respondent: Rachel
Answer: No
Estimate % agree: 30%
Respondent: Chloe'
Answer: Yes
Estimate % agree: 70%
Respondent: Katie
Answer: Yes
Estimate % agree: 68%
Respondent: Nina
Answer: No
Estimate % agree: 25%
(Krueger, 2000)
The false-consensus effect is one of the two problems that can occur when using the availability heuristic. It describes the human tendency to overestimate how many people have the same attrbutes, opinions, and behaviors (Kruger, 1998; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). When it comes to opinions on social issues such as abortion, God, and the death penalty, the false consensus occurs when people who support abortion estimate than many others also support abortion, as well as when people who do not support the death penalty estimate that many others do not support the death penalty. The questions I asked in the video clip demonstrate this concept well. As Chloe' and Katie were pro-choice and in support of the death penalty, they predicted that the majority of the US population is also pro-choice and in support of the death penalty. In contrast, Nina and Rachel, who were not pro-choice and not in support of the death penalty, predicted that the minority of the US population is pro-choice and in support of the death penalty (meaning that they estimated that the majority of the population held beliefs similar to their own). The false consensus effect is an interesting phenomenon and is quite easily demonstrated, as seen by this example.
Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 30, 163-240.
Krueger, J. (2000). The projective perception of the social world: A building block of social comparison processes. In J. Suls & L. Wheller (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 323-351). New York: Plenum/Kluwer.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus phenomenon: An attributional bias in self-perception and social-perception processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
