The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship?

Pluralistic Ignorance and Alcohol: Misperceived Norms or Better-Than-Average?

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e416902005-170 ◽

2003 ◽

Author(s):

Martin J. Bourgeois ◽

Anne M. Bowen ◽

Christine M. Shea Adams ◽

Dana M. Binder

Keyword(s):

Pluralistic Ignorance ◽

Better Than

Download Full-text

Pluralistic ignorance and perceived norm predict intention to give bribes in tight (vs loose) culture

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e627722013-612 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Yongyuan Chen ◽

Xiaoxiao Liu ◽

Tian Lan ◽

Hong Yingyi

Keyword(s):

Pluralistic Ignorance

Download Full-text

Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e633912013-212 ◽

2004 ◽

Author(s):

J. Nicole Shelton ◽

Jennifer A. Richeson

Keyword(s):

Intergroup Contact ◽

Pluralistic Ignorance

Download Full-text

Everyone Does It: Hooking Up, Pluralistic Ignorance, and Compassionate Intentions

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e654092012-001 ◽

2012 ◽

Author(s):

Jami C. Voss ◽

Sara K. Bridges ◽

Brienne M. Allen ◽

Elin Ovrebo

Keyword(s):

Hooking Up ◽

Pluralistic Ignorance

Download Full-text

Pluralistic Ignorance as a Contributing Factor to Concussion Underreporting

Health Education & Behavior ◽

10.1177/1090198121995732 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 109019812199573

Author(s):

Christine M. Baugh ◽

Craig A. Foster ◽

Brian R. Johnson ◽

Christopher D’Lauro

Keyword(s):

Social Norms ◽

Military Service ◽

Collegiate Athletes ◽

Demographic Characteristics ◽

Self Report ◽

Upper Class ◽

Pluralistic Ignorance ◽

Diverse Population ◽

Service Academy ◽

Willingness To Report

Background Concussion underreporting is endemic, and social norms are an established predictor of concussion reporting behavior. However, pluralistic ignorance—a situation in which most individuals in a group hold the belief that their peers’ views differ from their own, despite views actually being similar—has not been studied in this context. Aim To assess whether pluralistic ignorance contributes to concussion underreporting. Method We surveyed 2,504 military service academy cadets. Each cadet was presented with a survey asking about their willingness to self-report a concussion, their perception of other cadets’ willingness to report a concussion, and personal and demographic factors. Results Most cadets viewed themselves as more willing to report a concussion than others (mean difference = 1.12, 95% CI [1.02, 1.21]), a belief consistent with pluralistic ignorance. Demographic characteristics were associated with holding this belief. For example, female cadets and upper-class cadets were more likely to show this disparity than male or under-class cadets, respectively. Collegiate athletes not only showed similar willingness to report concussion as nonathletes but also perceived other cadets as less likely to report concussions. Meanwhile, future pilots showed less self-report willingness and perceived that others were similarly unwilling to report concussions. Discussion A majority of this economically and geographically diverse population displays characteristics of pluralistic ignorance: They largely share proconcussion reporting sentiments but incorrectly perceive that others do not. This belief is not held uniformly in all subpopulations, which may inform how these beliefs are developed and maintained. Conclusions Pluralistic ignorance is an important consideration in concussion education efforts.

Download Full-text

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

Review of General Psychology ◽

10.1177/1089268021995168 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 108926802199516

Author(s):

Rikki H. Sargent ◽

Leonard S. Newman

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Future Research ◽

Pluralistic Ignorance ◽

Group Level ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

Individual Level ◽

Group Members

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.

Download Full-text