The False Consensus Effect
The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate how common one's own opinions, choices, and attitudes are among others, often because people assume that others similarly construe situations. This cognitive bias can lead to misunderstandings and unwarranted negative inferences about others.
THE IDEA
The False Consensus Effect
The false consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977) is a manifestation of adult egocentrism where individuals overestimate the commonness of their own responses. People who make a given choice or hold a given conviction tend to see that response as more common and less revealing of personal attributes than those who make the opposite choice.
Classic Demonstration
In a study by Ross, Greene, and House, students were asked if they would walk around campus wearing a sandwichboard sign. Those who agreed and those who declined both thought their own response would be the more common and less revealing. This was interpreted as resulting from differing construals of the situation: those who agreed imagined positive reactions, while those who declined imagined negative reactions.
Construal Interpretation
Gilovich (1990) provided evidence for this interpretation. In one study, participants preferred 1960s or 1980s music. Those preferring 1960s music generated more agreeable exemplars of that era, while those preferring 1980s music did the same for their preferred era. Both groups then overestimated how many peers shared their preference.
“Childish” Games: Special Cases
Musical Tapping
Newton (1990) had “tappers” tap out a well-known song to a “listener.” Tappers predicted listeners would identify the song 50% of the time, but listeners actually succeeded less than 3% of the time. Tappers could not separate their own internal experience of the melody from the impoverished taps they produced.
“My World” Problem
Puccio & Ross (1999) gave participants clues about “My World,” where the unifying principle was that objects/activities had double letters. Some participants were told the solution in advance (raters), while others tried to solve it (solvers). Raters estimated that 83% of their peers would solve it, but only 21% actually did. Those who solved it themselves also overestimated success (78%), while those who failed were accurate (25%).
Romantic Break-Ups
Pronin & Ross (1999) found that people initiating a break-up perceived their own communications as clearer than their partner’s break-up communications. They misjudged the clarity of their intended message, leading to misattributions.
These studies illustrate how difficult it is to separate our own knowledge from what is actually available to others, leading to false consensus and unwarranted negative inferences.
When to use it
A teacher overestimates how well students understand new material because they themselves fully grasp it, leading to confusion and frustration for both parties.
A product designer assumes users will intuitively know how to navigate an interface because the design seems obvious to the creator, leading to poor user experience.
Someone giving directions to a stranger assumes the recipient can follow along easily, but the recipient struggles because they lack the local knowledge of landmarks or street layouts.
In a romantic breakup, one person believes they communicated their reasons clearly, while the other feels confused, leading to resentment and misunderstanding.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Sandwichboard Sign Study
In a study by Ross, Greene, and House (1977), students were asked if they would walk around campus wearing a sandwichboard sign. Both those who agreed and those who declined thought their own response would be the more common and less revealing of personal attributes. The difference was due to how they construed the situation: agree-ers imagined positive reactions, while decliners imagined negative reactions.
Music Preference Study
Gilovich (1990) asked participants whether they preferred 1960s or 1980s music, then to estimate what percentage of peers shared that preference. Those who preferred 1960s music generated more agreeable exemplars of that era, and similarly for 1980s music fans. Both groups overestimated the commonness of their preference because they construed the musical eras differently.
Musical Tapping Study
Newton (1990) had tappers tap out a well-known song to listeners. Tappers predicted that listeners would identify the song 50% of the time, but listeners succeeded less than 3% of the time. Tappers were unable to separate their own internal experience of the melody from the impoverished taps they produced.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time when you assumed others would agree with your choice or opinion, but they didn’t. What might have been different about their perspective or construal of the situation?
When giving instructions or information, how can you check whether you are overestimating how obvious your message is to others?
Recall a situation where you were frustrated that someone didn't understand something you thought was clear. How might that have been a case of false consensus?
References
- Ross, Greene, & House (1977) – The false consensus effect — Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977)
- Gilovich (1990) – Construal interpretation of false consensus — Gilovich, T. (1990)
- Newton (1990) – Musical tapping study — Newton, E. (1990)
- Morris, Heath, & Jost (1999) – Replication and attributions in tapping study — Morris, M. W., Heath, C., & Jost, J. T. (1999)
- Puccio & Ross (1999) – 'My World' problem study — Puccio, P., & Ross, L. (1999)
- Pronin & Ross (1999) – Break-up communication study — Pronin, E., & Ross, L. (1999)
- Keysar (1994) – Perspective taking in communication — Keysar, B. (1994)
- Keysar, Ginzel, & Bazerman (1995) – Related research on perspective — Keysar, B., Ginzel, L. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1995)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)