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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

false consensus false uniqueness influenza vaccination perceived social norms

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ross

Greene

House

The “false consensus effect:” an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1977;13:279–301.

Mannarini

Roccato

Russo

The false consensus effect: a trigger of radicalization in local unwanted land uses conflicts?

J Environ Psychol. 2015:42;76–81.

Schulz

Wirth

Müller

We are the people and you are the fake news: a social identity approach to populist and citizens’ false consensus and hostile media perceptions. Communication Research. Forthcoming.

Krueger

JI.

From social projection to social behaviour. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2007;18:1–35.

Marks

Miller

Ten years of research on the false consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 1987;102:72–90.

Whitley

BE.

False consensus on sexual behavior among college women: comparison of four theoretical explanations. J Sex Res. 1998;35:206–14.

Galesic

Olsson

Rieskamp

Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychol Sci. 2012;23:1515–23.

Galesic

Olsson

Rieskamp

A sampling model of social judgment. Psychol Rev. 2018;125:363–90.

Hertwig

Pachur

Kurzenhäuser

Judgments of risk frequencies: tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cog. 2005;31:621–42.

10.

Pachur

Hertwig

Rieskamp

Intuitive judgments of social statistics: How exhaustive does sampling need to be?

J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49:1059–77.

11.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

JM.

Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27;415–44.

12.

Parker

Vardavas

Marcum

CS, Gidengil

. Conscious consideration of herd immunity in influenza vaccination decisions. Am J Prev Health. 2013;45:118–21.

13.

Bruine

Bruin

Parker

Galesic

Vardavas

Reports of social circles’ and own vaccination behavior: a national longitudinal survey. Health Psychol. 2019;38(11):975–83.

14.

RAND Corporation. RAND American Life Panel. Available from: https://www.rand.org/labor/alp.html.

15.

RAND Corporation. RAND American Life Panel, MS216. Available from: https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=data&p=download&ft=paper&syid=216.

16.

Biggerstaff

Jhung

Reed

Fry

Balluz

Finelli

Influenza-like illness, the time to seek healthcare, and influenza antiviral receipt during the 2010-2011 influenza season—United States. J Infect Dis. 2014;210:535–44.

17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Final state-level influenza vaccination coverage estimates for the 2010–11 season–United States, National Immunization Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, August 2010 throughMay 2011. 2017. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage_1011estimates.htm. Accessed April 20, 2019.

18.

Alicke

MD.

Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985:49;1621–30.

19.

Kruger

Dunning

Unskilled and unwaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999:77;1121–34.

20.

Kumar

Quinn

Kim

Musa

Hillyard

Freimuth

VS.

The social ecological model as a framework for determinants of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States. Health Educ Behav. 2011;39:229–43.

21.

Prinstein

Wang

SS.

False consensus and peer contagion: examining discrepancies between perceptions and actual reported levels of friends’ deviant and health risk behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2005;33:293–306.

22.

Fagerlin

Ditto

Danks

Houts

RM.

Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20:166–75.

23.

Nisbett

Kunda

Perception of social distributions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;48:297–311.

24.

Dawes

RM.

Statistical criteria for establishing a truly false consensus effect. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1989;25:1–17.

25.

Dawtry

Sutton

Sibley

CG.

Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters: from social sampling to attitudes to redistribution. Psychol Sci. 2015;26:1389–400.

26.

Galesic

Bruine

Bruin

Dumas

Kapteyn

Darling

Meijer

Asking about social circles improves election predictions. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:187–93.

27.

Latkin

Knowlton

AR.

Social network assessments and interventions for health behavior change: a critical review. Behav Med. 2015:41;90–7.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB