款款都是经典 8款2017年4月份值得买的千元手机推荐

Recently, I was talking with students in class about self-serving biases that shape our social interactions. We described the classic social psychology phenomenon known as the false consensus effect. This cognitive bias leads individuals to overestimate the extent to which others share their beliefs and opinions, creating a distorted view of social agreement.

Students are often interested in how these biases might change over time and vary across groups. While we might expect a growing societal awareness of self-serving biases as revealed by psychological science to in turn reduce the prevalence of these biases, this is not necessarily the case.

One critical sphere of social interaction where false consensus is a problem is the democratic political sphere. For those who are close to the political action, any tendency toward false consensus effects will bias their view of public opinion, resulting in policies and actions that do not accurately reflect the true preferences of the electorate, thereby undermining democratic responsiveness and accountability.

What New Research Tells Us About False Consensus

In a recent study, Furnas and LaPira (2024) highlight how unelected political "elites" can fall prey to false consensus effects—in essence, misjudging public opinion in a way that aligns more closely with their own policy preferences. The study explored potential false consensus effects across a diverse sample of 3,743 non-elected political elites in the U.S., including civil servants, political staff, political journalists, corporate leaders, lobbyists, and advocacy group members.

To do this, they asked participants to rate the extent to which they support a range of different policies, including policies in the domain of healthcare, climate, immigration, tax, and gun control policies. The responses of the 3,743 political elites were compared to the responses provided by a sample of 1,098 likely voters (i.e., a comparison sample of public opinion). Importantly, the political elites were asked to estimate the percentage of public support for each policy while also indicating their own support levels.

Meanwhile, a sample of likely voters provided responses indicating their levels of support for each policy. The research team then analysed discrepancies between elite perceptions of public support and actual public opinion data derived from the likely voter responses.

What They Found: Elite Perception vs. Political Reality

While scholars have often assumed that experienced political elites possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to make well-informed decisions and avoid the pitfalls of oversimplification, the findings from the study by Furnas and LaPira highlight limitations in the judgement of political elites when it comes to their understanding of public opinion.

In particular, the study revealed that these elites' perceptions of public sentiment were off by a staggering 20 to 25 percentage points, influenced specifically by whether they personally were strong proponents or opponents of specific policies. They tended to overestimate the popularity of the policies they advocate while underestimating the popularity of the policies they oppose. This misalignment was observed in the data irrespective of the elite’s political affiliation, professional background, or the information they consume.

As noted by Furnas and LaPira, this misperception doesn't appear to simply be the result of partisanship skewing judgment. What the data indicates is an egocentric effect, which means that people are influenced by their own beliefs and experiences when thinking about what others believe. This is different from partisan bias, where someone's opinions are shaped primarily by their political party affiliation.

In simple terms, egocentric effects show that elites believe, “If I think this way, then most people must think this way too.” They rely on their own opinions as a stand-in for public opinion, leading to misperceptions about how widely their views are shared.

What Can We Do About It?

Given the problem of egocentrism and false consensus effects observed in this study, there are at least two solutions for bridging the gap between political elites’ misconceptions and actual public opinion: collecting robust data on public sentiment and fostering dialogue that encourages understanding among diverse viewpoints.

Politics Essential Reads

Do Negative Worldviews Lead to Political Instability?

Will Human Nature Allow Democracy to Survive?

Firstly, ongoing data collection is crucial. By utilizing surveys, polls, and various data-gathering methods, we can create a more accurate picture of what the public truly thinks. This information can inform policymakers and political elites, helping them better align their actions with constituents' needs and desires.

Secondly, establishing dialogical spaces—forums, community discussions, and inclusive platforms—can facilitate open conversations among individuals from varied backgrounds. By encouraging people to share their beliefs and listen to others, these environments can cultivate empathy and a deeper understanding of different perspectives. This dialogue not only strengthens democratic engagement but also enhances collective problem-solving, as diverse viewpoints lead to more comprehensive solutions.

When scaled up, these practices can reinforce democratic processes by ensuring that elected officials are more attuned to the voices of their constituents and by fostering an informed electorate that values diverse opinions. By bridging gaps through data and dialogue, we can work towards a healthier democratic society that genuinely reflects and represents its people's views.