Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gross, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gross, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The "Golden Section" and Bias in Perceptions of Social Consensus

Sharon Ruth Gross

Norman Miller

Department of Psychology, University of Southern California

Meta-analytic examination of 128 false consensus effect issues supports the hypothesis that the "Golden Section" (61.8% group size) approximates the level of actual consensus that separates overestimation of consensus (group size < 61.8%) from underestimation (group size > 61.8%). Overestimation of the actual percentage of others who endorse one's own view increases as actual consensus decreases from 61.8%, and underestimation increases as it exceeds 61.8%. The form of the response (viz,, a yes or no answer to a question) moderates this conclusion. The Golden Section holds for majorities and minorities defined by agreement with an issue. For majority and minority groups defined by disagreement, the inflection point is higher. Contrary to Mullen and Hu (1988), for agreeing majorities, the slope for consensus underestimation as a function of increased majority size does not differ from that of minority overestimation.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, 241-271 (1997)
DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_4
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Public Opin ResHome page
M. Wojcieszak and V. Price
What Underlies the False Consensus Effect? How Personal Opinion and Disagreement Affect Perception of Public Opinion
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2009; 21(1): 25 - 46.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Opin QHome page
M. Wojcieszak
False Consensus Goes Online: Impact of Ideologically Homogeneous Groups on False Consensus
Public Opin Q, December 1, 2008; 72(4): 781 - 791.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
M. Hewstone, R. J. Crisp, A. Contarello, A. Voci, L. Conway, G. Marletta, and H. Willis
Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with 'Skewed', 'Tilted' and 'Balanced' Sex Ratios
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2006; 9(4): 509 - 532.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
B. Monin and M. I. Norton
Perceptions of a Fluid Consensus: Uniqueness Bias, False Consensus, False Polarization, and Pluralistic Ignorance in a Water Conservation Crisis
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2003; 29(5): 559 - 567.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
J. W. Kulig
Effects of Forced Exposure to a Hypothetical Population on False Consensus
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2000; 26(5): 629 - 636.
[Abstract] [PDF]