How popular are pop stars? The false consensus of perceived celebrity popularity.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Collisson ◽  
Lynn E. McCutcheon ◽  
Marla Johnston ◽  
Jeanne Edman
Keyword(s):  
False Consensus

False Consensus and Gender Differences in the Clinton-Lewinsky Sex Scandal

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford E. Brown ◽  
Nancy A. Perhot ◽  
Julia L. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
And Gender

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 Bias in the perceived prevalence of open defecation: evidence from Bihar, India

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinyi Kuang ◽  
Erik Thulin ◽  
Sania Ashraf ◽  
Alex Shpenev ◽  
Upasak Das ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Open Defecation ◽  
Behavior Change Interventions ◽  
Significant Public Health Concern ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
Significant Public Health ◽  
Consensus Bias ◽  
Actual Prevalence

People often form perceptions about how prevalent a behavior is in a social group. However, these perceptions can be inaccurate and biased. While persistent undesirable practices in low-income countries have drawn global attention, evidence regarding people’s perception of how prevalent these practices are is scarce. Among those harmful practices, open defecation in India remains a significant public health concern, where it perpetuates the vicious cycle of disease and poverty. In this study, we focus on measuring the perceived prevalence of open defecation among respondents in Bihar, India. We examined the bias in perceived prevalence, which is defined as a pattern of deviation from the actual prevalence of open defecation. Results showed that respondents who defecate in the open overestimate the prevalence of open defecation, whereas those who consistently use toilets underestimate it. This finding suggests a false consensus bias in the perceived prevalence of open defecation. Scholars, policymakers, and program implementers who seek to correct misperceptions about open defecation by broadcasting real prevalence should be aware of biases in the perceived prevalence and address them in behavior change interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document