The Role of Self in the False Consensus Effect

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Alicke ◽  
Edward Largo
Keyword(s):  
False Consensus Effect ◽  
False Consensus

The role of the evaluation and similarity principles in the false consensus effect.

1984 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1244-1262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Sherman ◽  
Laurie Chassin ◽  
Clark C. Presson ◽  
Gina Agostinelli
Keyword(s):  
False Consensus Effect ◽  
False Consensus

scholarly journals EXPRESS: Marketers Project Their Personal Preferences onto Consumers: Overcoming the Threat of Egocentric Decision Making

2021 ◽  
pp. 002224372199837
Author(s):  
Walter Herzog ◽  
Johannes D. Hattula ◽  
Darren W. Dahl
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Consumer Preferences ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Marketing Managers ◽  
False Consensus Effect ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
High Level

This research explores how marketing managers can avoid the so-called false consensus effect—the egocentric tendency to project personal preferences onto consumers. Two pilot studies were conducted to provide evidence for the managerial importance of this research question and to explore how marketing managers attempt to avoid false consensus effects in practice. The results suggest that the debiasing tactic most frequently used by marketers is to suppress their personal preferences when predicting consumer preferences. Four subsequent studies show that, ironically, this debiasing tactic can backfire and increase managers’ susceptibility to the false consensus effect. Specifically, the results suggest that these backfire effects are most likely to occur for managers with a low level of preference certainty. In contrast, the results imply that preference suppression does not backfire but instead decreases false consensus effects for managers with a high level of preference certainty. Finally, the studies explore the mechanism behind these results and show how managers can ultimately avoid false consensus effects—regardless of their level of preference certainty and without risking backfire effects.

scholarly journals The Role of Social Circle Perceptions in “False Consensus” about Population Statistics: Evidence from a National Flu Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-241
Author(s):  
Wändi Bruine de Bruin ◽  
Mirta Galesic ◽  
Andrew M. Parker ◽  
Raffaele Vardavas
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Vaccination Coverage ◽  
Vaccine Coverage ◽  
Population Estimates ◽  
Social Contacts ◽  
Population Statistics ◽  
Social Circle ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
People’S Perceptions

Purpose. “False consensus” refers to individuals with (v. without) an experience judging that experience as more (v. less) prevalent in the population. We examined the role of people’s perceptions of their social circles (family, friends, and acquaintances) in shaping their population estimates, false consensus patterns, and vaccination intentions. Methods. In a national online flu survey, 351 participants indicated their personal vaccination and flu experiences, assessed the percentage of individuals with those experiences in their social circles and the population, and reported their vaccination intentions. Results. Participants’ population estimates of vaccination coverage and flu prevalence were associated with their perceptions of their social circles’ experiences, independent of their own experiences. Participants reporting less social circle “homophily” (or fewer social contacts sharing their experience) showed less false consensus and even “false uniqueness.” Vaccination intentions were greater among nonvaccinators reporting greater social circle vaccine coverage. Discussion. Social circle perceptions play a role in population estimates and, among individuals who do not vaccinate, vaccination intentions. We discuss implications for the literature on false consensus, false uniqueness, and social norms interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document