The Feature-Positive Effect,Attitude Strength,and Degree of Perceived Consensus

Abstract

The feature-positive effect refers to the tendency in animals and humans to experience difficulty processing nonoccurrences. The present study investigated the role of this phenomenon in self-perception and in estimates of consensus. Subjects were asked to express a preference either by doing something, the active response, or by doing nothing, the passive response. Afterward, subjects' attitudes on the issue were measured and they were asked to estimate the percentage of their peers who would have responded similarly. The results revealed that subjects who responded actively held significantly stronger attitudes in the direction of their responses than did subjects who responded passively. Moreover, active respondents' consensus estimates were significantly greater than those of passive respondents. Interpretations of these results are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alloy, L. B. , & Tabachnick, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.

Binder, A. (1963). Further considerations on testing the null hypothesis and the strategy and tactics of investigating theoretical models. Psychological Review, 70, 107-115.

Fazio, R. H. , Sherman, S. J. , & Herr, P. M. (1982). The feature-positive effect in the self-perception process: Does not doing matter as much as doing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 404-411.

Goethals, G. R. , Allison, S. J. , & Frost, M. (1979). Perceptions of the magnitude and diversity of social support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 570-581.

Grant, D. A. (1962). Testing the null hypothesis and the strategy and tactics of investigating theoretical models. Psychological Review, 69, 54-61.

Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 221-234.

Jenkins, H. M. , & Sainsbury, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mullen, B. , Atkins, J. , Champion, D. S. , Edwards, C. , Hardy, D. , Story, J. E. , & Vanderklok, M. (1985). The false-consensus effect: A meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 262-283.

10.

Newman, J. , Wolff, W. T. , & Hearst, E. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 630-650.

11.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.

12.

Schustack, M. W. , & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101-120.

13.

Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and basis. Science, 185, 1124-1131.

14.

Wells, G. L. , & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.