FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 1

Effects of Morally Challenging Situations in the Perception of Commonality of Beliefs

Noel Edrick P. Landig
De La Salle University
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 2

Introduction

False Consensus Effect

False consensus effect is an individual’s tendency to overestimate one’s commonality of

opinion and behavior. Based from an online article by Cherry (2019), the author stated the false

consensus effect happens primarily because of three factors. Firstly, an individual surrounds him

or herself with people (e.g., family and friends) who tend to share the same values and opinions

as the individual. This is mentioned in the book, Social Psychology Twelfth Edition (Myers &

Twenge, 2017, p.351), the authors stated that the similarity is one of the few factors that will

promote attraction; and that similarity breeds content. In addition, according to Reid, Davis, &

Green, (2013), “Participants reported greater attraction to partners who engaged in attitude

alignment and who were more similar.” The experiment essentially shows that similarity in

attitude by seventy-five percent will yield into a significant effect with the attraction. Secondly,

believing that other individuals think and behave similarly is beneficial for the self-esteem.

Self-esteem is the individual’s overall evaluation or self-worth. This factor can be further

understood with the social comparison theory. The theory states that individuals determine and

judge his or her own social and personal worth based on how he or she perceives others that may

fair better or worse. Lastly, since the behavior and beliefs are in the forefront of the individual’s

mind, he or she is more likely to notice when other individuals share similar behavior and

beliefs.
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 3

The purpose of this experiment is to test the false consensus effect and how it relates the

morally challenging situations to the perceived commonality of the opinion. The researcher

tackled this topic because the topic discussed can be applied into various topics (e.g., perception

of engagement in drug use and risky behaviors). False consensus effect is significant because it

can increase or decrease the self-esteem of an individual. It may also be derived from the desire

of an individual to conform, to be accepted by other individuals. In extreme cases, false

consensus effect can wrongly justify or strengthen an individual’s negative outlooks or belief in

life, thinking that his or her actions and beliefs are common to other individuals. Based from a

study (Dunn, Thomas, Swift, et al, 2011), nine hundred seventy-four participants tended to report

a commonality of usage of drugs among athletes. The perception of the commonality is

influenced by the participants’ drug use history. Additionally, according to Prinstein & Wang,

(2015), “adolescents’ perceptions of their best friends’ behavior are prospectively associated

with their own behavior.” The study also stated that the level of friendship has an effect on the

estimation of the participant. The low level of friendship is associated with estimation errors, but

not overestimation. Lastly, in the study of Coleman (2016), the results show that participants that

experienced positive emotions have a tendency to increase their estimates because the

participants believe that their behaviors are logical, while the participants that experienced

negative emotions have a tendency to decrease their estimates because the participants believe

that their behaviors are illogical. The previous studies show that false consensus effect is usually

mediated by another factor. In Dunn’s study, perceived commonality of usage of drugs is

affected by the athletes’ history of drug use. For Prinstein & Wang’s study, the estimation of the

best friend’s behavior is affected by the level of friendship the participant has with the ‘best
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 4

friend’. While for Coleman’s study, emotions seem to affect an individual’s estimate of

commonality.

False consensus effect, an innate perception of the commonality of an individual’s

behavior and beliefs, has many useful implications to different fields and situations. Based on a

study (Bui, 2012), the author tackled how false consensus affects the attitude toward celebrities.

According to the author, “estimates of others’ recognition of the favorite celebrity significantly

predicted participants’ estimates of others’ liking, favoring, and having similar feelings toward

that celebrity.” The study implied that assessments of others’ attitudes and beliefs as an indicator

for a bigger audience is erroneous and can result to unwanted or unpredictable outcomes.

Furthermore, in the study of Oostrom, Köbis, Ronay, & Cremers (2017) shows that

participants unintentionally reveal their own responses and behaviors when asked ‘how would

other participants respond to the question’, The authors implied that researchers and human

resources can use this to evaluate individuals’ personality and behavioral tendencies.

Equally important, it is studied by Roth & Voskort (2014) that financial professionals

show significant effect with false consensus effect. A surprising finding is that the more

experienced (i.e. senior) financial professionals tend to have the stronger effect with the false

consensus; while the less experienced (i.e. junior) financial professionals, have lower effect with

the false consensus. Although the professionals show false consensus, their predictions are

nevertheless more accurate compared to the non-professionals (i.e. students). The authors also
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 5

noted that the financial professionals took into consideration the target’s gender and income to

make their predictions. In spite of the false consensus effect to be prevalent in different settings

and situations, in the study of Tirso, Geraci, & Saenz (2019) show otherwise. The authors

tackled how students made predictions about their grades, percentiles, and their judgements of

others’ abilities before taking an exam. It is concluded in the study that high performers and low

performers made similar class predictions, and that the high performers did not assume that their

peers were as skilled as them. Thus, false consensus effect was not present in this study.

The study made by Aksoy & Weesie (2012), showed that individuals that have an

approximately zero in the social parameter values is more likely to expect less variation in

others’ social orientation. The result supports the cone model. The cone model based on the

study, states that “all social orientation categories expect others to be similar to the self. “ The

cone model itself models the false consensus effect. Given the information, the authors

concluded that individualists have the highest tendency for false consensus effect. To add, in the

study of Scaffidi Abate, Boca, & Gendolla (2016), it is stated that self focused attention or self

awareness on an individual decreases the tendency for a false consensus effect. The authors

indicated that this signifies that self-awareness lessens ego-centrism, as false consensus effect is

a form of ego-centrism.

Additionally, in a study made by Sokoloski, Markowitz, and Bidwell (2018), showed that

both opponents showed overestimation in opposition and that each side believed that they held

the majority. The study is regarding the perception of opposition and support for the offshore
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 6

wind projects in the northeastern USA. In the results of the study, political party identity became

a moderating effect. To add further support in the prevalence of false consensus effect in a

situation where there are two opposing groups, the study of Mannarini, Roccato, & Russo (2015)

tackles the conflicts over locally unwanted land use (LULU). Their results showed that false

consensus effect is evident in both opposing groups (opposing the project vs supporting the

project). Their study also showed that people who perceive the project is “highly threatening”,

tends to adopt the false consensus effect. The authors implied in their study that false consensus

effect functions as an adoptive or defensive response to a situation that is perceived as a

legitimate threat to the individual. In contrast, according to Rabinowitz, Latella, Stern, & Jost

(2016), “conservatives overestimated the proportion of like-minded others who agreed with

them, liberals underestimated the proportion of others who agreed with them.” The context of the

study is about the estimation of parents’ belief regarding the vaccination of their respective

children.

Furthermore, in the study of Marks & Miller (1987), they tackled and reviewed 10 years

worth of research regarding false consensus effect. One of the findings they got was that,

similarity and selective exposure promotes or increases the tendency for an individual to

perceive false consensus. To add, the authors suggested that focus of attention also plays a role in

the consensus effect. When an individual thinks of the option or choice that he or she already

wants and refuses to think of an alternative, the individual’s estimation of commonality

increases. The authors also noted that when an opinion issue is personal, then there is a higher

tendency for false consensus.

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 7

Moral Dilemma

According to Christensen, Flexas, Calabrese, Gut, & Gomila (2014), moral dilemmas are

short stories that shows a situation, where there will be a conflict between moral reasons. A good

example is the duty not to kill versus the duty to not help. “Additionally, it is a situation where

there is no optimal solution” (Gobo, 2008, p.365). Forcing a participant to respond to moral

dilemma will help project the prioritised or favoured reason in the given situation or dilemma.

Discussed by Vallentyne (1989), the author dwelled on the two types of moral dilemmas. First is

the obligation dilemma, these are situations where more than one of the choices is obligatory.

The second is the prohibition dilemma, these on the other hand, are situations where no choice is

permissible. The participant may either approach the situation with the deontological principle or

the utilitarian principle. The deontological principle judges actions as a moral to a point that they

adhere to moral principles that are universal. The utilitarian principle on the other hand, judges

action to the degree that the action produces the best overall outcome. Given these, different

principles or approaches to a moral dilemma, there are still different factors that may affect an

individual to follow either one of the approaches.

In a study by Armstrong, Friesdorf, & Conway, (2018), the authors tackled how gender

differences will affect the individual in following a principle. The study showed that women got

a higher score than men in deontological tendencies, while men and women are both similar in

the tendencies for utilitarian principle. In the study to show that completing moral dilemmas will

increase the deontological response rather than utilitarian.

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 8

Additionally, a study conducted by ​Białek, Paruzel-Czachura, & Gawronski, (2019)

showed that foreign language had an effect on the participant’s judgment to the moral dilemma.

The first two findings is that foreign language lessened the sensitivity of the participants to the

consequences and the norms. The last finding is that there was no significant effect between the

language and the general action tendencies. Further discussions by the authors revealed that

foreign language seems to be less concerned about the morality of the dilemma, when it is

presented in a foreign language. In support of the topic about how foreign language affects the

judgement of an individual in a moral dilemma, a study suggested that (Muda, Niszczota,

Białek, & Conway, 2018) also states that moral dilemmas read in a foreign language decreases

the participants’ concern for the safety and well-being of the people in danger. It reduces the

tendency for the participant to approach the dilemma with either the deontological or utilitarian

principle.

The study conducted by Reynolds, Knighten, & Conway, (2019) shows that people who

look at themselves in the mirror have the tendency to reject harm in sacrificial dilemmas and

appears to be more averse to causing harm. The authors also implied that making a choice in a

dilemma have important implications in self image and reputation. Additionally, rejection of

harm, projects trustworthiness and morality, but it also projects low logical processing and

competence. In a similar study made by Lee, Sul, & Kim, (2018), the authors stated that many

ethical dilemmas are usually social; because of this, the moral stands and beliefs of an individual

or the participant is usually disclosed to the public as well. This is one factor that many

laboratory experiments seem to miss out. The results of the study showed that the moral
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 9

judgements that an individual makes everyday is intertwined with the different social outcomes

of choosing or endorsing a moral stand. Additionally, in the study of Rom & Conway (2018),

showed that participants have an accurate insight to how warm or competent they are perceived

by others when making decisions in moral dilemmas. The trend in the first study the authors

made follows that the decision makers are perceived to be warm, but low in competence

(deontological approach), when they rejected harm, as compared to the decision makers that

accepted outcome-maximizing harm (utilitarian approach).

In a study by Shous & Song (2017), the perception of the participants regarding the

possible outcomes significantly affected their moral choices. The participants have a tendency to

not choose a choice, if they perceived a probability that will have a higher negative outcome.

This behavior can be patterned to the utilitarian principle or approach. The study also showed

that the chances of a scenario happening or the believability of a scenario may affect the

participants’ tendency to approach the dilemma in a utilitarian way. Similarly, a study by

Gawronski, Conway, Armstrong, Friesdorf, & Hütter, (2018) proved that ‘incidental happiness’

decreased the sensitivity of the participant to the moral norms without affecting the sensitivity to

the consequences. Furthermore, the study showed that incidental sadness and anger did not have

a significant effect on the judgement in the moral dilemma.

In summary, false consensus effect seems to increase if the individual is living an isolated

lifestyle (e.g. Aksoy & Weesie, 2012), emotion (e.g. Coleman, 2016), level of friendship or

closeness to a person (e.g. Prinstein & Wang, 2015), and the history of the individual (e.g.
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 10

Dunn, Thomas, et al, 2011). Focus of attention, similarity, and the personalness of the opinion

(e.g. Marks & Miller, 1987) are also factors that affects the false consensus effect. On the other

hand, there are also some identified factors that will lessen false consensus effect. These are

self-awareness (e.g. Scaffidi Abate, Boca, et al 2016) and positive emotions (e.g. Coleman,

2016).Additionally, it is a trend that when there are two oppositions, both oppositions seem to

think that their respective beliefs are common (Roth & Voskort, 2014, Tirso, Geraci, et al, 2019).

This is, however, not the trend in the study of Rabinowitz, Latella, et al (2016). Their study

showed that the liberals underestimated the commonality of their behavior, compared to the

conservatives. Next, the moral dilemma is greatly affected by emotion (e.g. Gawronski, Conway,

et al, 2018), perception of the participant (e.g. Shous & Song, 2017), sex (Armstrong, Friesdor,

et al, 2018) and foreign language (e.g. ​Muda, Niszczota, et al, 2018, Białek, Paruzel-Czachura, et

al 2019). Given these information, the researcher hypothesized that if the individual is subjected

to a morally challenging dilemma, then their perceived commonality will be lower, as compared

to the individual subjected to a “not morally challenging” dilemma. This research is important as

most of the studies on false consensus effect, focuses on proving it in different scenarios and the

factors will either increase or decrease the false consensus. Although the past studies focuses on

the different factors that will affect the false consensus, the researcher believes that morally

challenging dilemmas have not been tested as a factor that will affect false consensus.
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 11

Methodology

Participants

The study will consist of De La Salle University students that are enrolled for the

2019-2020 school year. The sample from the population will be gathered by convenience

sampling. The participants will be recruited by social media postings in different platforms, such

as: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The experiment is open to any DLSU, no matter what their

course, college, and ID number is. Excluded from the study are those students that belong to the

senior high school and post-graduate programs. The researcher utilized the computer program

G*Power to get an estimate number for the sample size. The researcher inputted a large effect

size (0.40) and a ∝ err prob of (0.05). The program yielded a total of 102 sample size. The

participants will be assigned to their respective conditions by random assignment.

Design

The study will follow the between subjects design. There will be two independent

variables in the study. These two are the obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas. The

obligation dilemmas will be dilemmas where more than one of the choices is obligatory.

Prohibition dilemmas on the other hand will be dilemmas where no choice is permissible.

The dependent variable will be the perception of commonality of the participants’ choice or

behavior.
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 12

Materials

Stimulus Materials

The overall count of dilemmas will be fifteen (15). The prohibition dilemma, obligation

dilemma, and the ‘not morally challenging’ dilemma will each get 5 situations. Below will be

one of the five sample situations for each treatment.

1) Obligation Dilemma situations

a) Satre’s Student

- You are an only child in an average class family, at this time you are

already in your early 20’s. Your mother is already in her late 50’s and

your father is in his mid 50’s. In an unexpected event, your country, is

suddenly invaded and bombed by foreign soldiers. In an attempt to help

your country, your father joined the military. A few days later, a military

messenger visited your house and broke the news that your father’s

whereabouts are unknown, the messenger added that your father has a

70% chance to be alive, since his last known location was in your

country’s territory. Your mother, still shocked about the news, just stood

there still. The military messenger on the other hand gave you a letter that

contains an invitation for you to join the military and help look for your

father. To add more into the context, your mother is now relying on you

for comfort. What would you do? Would you oblige to your mother or to

you father?
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 13

2) Prohibition Dilemma situations

a) Sophie’s Choice

- You are an inmate in war prison after the successful invasion of foreign

soldiers to your country. You and both of your parents are captured after

the foreign invaders ransacked your hometown. The foreign soldiers are

treating you and the rest of the prisoners very poorly. Although they feed

twice a day, all of you prisoners get beat up and harassed at least thrice a

day. It is so bad to a point that both your parents hated the place and

wanted to make a plan to get out of the prison. You, being the logical

person you are, thought that they should abandon that plan since all of the

foreign soldiers are uptight, strict, and randomly patrols the cages. Your

parents refused to listen and they went on devising a plan to escape the

prison. The next day, in the courtyard, you heard your mother screaming

at the top of her lungs. When you went to the scene to investigate, you saw

your parents getting beat up by three foreign soldiers; and in the hands of

the soldiers are the plans and notes that your parents have done. The

commanding foreign soldier, knowing that you are the son based from

their information background check, signalled you to come closer to the

scene. The commanding foreign soldier shouted, and the other two

soldiers made your parents lie face down on the ground and they drew

their guns and pointed their respective guns to you mom and dad. The
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 14

commanding soldier told you this, “Pick which of your parents will be

shot right now. I will pardon the one that you will not choose to live out

his or her life in prison. Choose none, and I will kill both of them.”

3) “Not Morally” challenging situations

a) Dog Choice

- It is your 20th birthday, and your parents are planning something big for

your surprise gift. As the day passed by, you wonder what your parents

have in store for you. As the day is about to end, your parents asked you to

come with them. They drove all the way to an almost empty parking lot.

There are two people in the parking lot both are accompanied by what it

seems like a dog.. One of the dogs is a golden retriever, while the other

one is a husky. The golden retriever costs around Php 8,000 but the dog

seller reported that the dog is well mannered. The husky on the other hand

costs around Php 6,000 but the dog seller reported that the dog has a

tendency to bite people. The car that you are driving on stopped in front of

the two good boys. Your parents then shouted “surprise!” they then asked

you to pick one of the dogs and that this was the surprise that they have

been waiting to tell you. To add further context, your parents will use Php

10,000 to buy whichever dog you pick, and the change of the transaction

will go to you. Which dog would you pick?

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 15

Rating Materials

The researcher will also have a questionnaire to present to the participant while the

participant is assessing the dilemma. The first page of the questionnaire will contain

ethnographic questions, which the researcher deemed to be a factor that could cause to affect

students’ perception in the commonality of their behavior. The succeeding pages will consist of

questions pertaining to the moral dilemmas and the perceived commonality of answers. The

questions will include: “What would you do in the given situation?”, “What do you think others

chose for this situation?”, and a follow up question of “Why did you do what you did?”. Under

the first two questions will be provided with two to three possible responses.

Other Materials

The researcher will be using an informed consent form for the participants. The informed

consent form will include the following: Purpose of the study, procedures, duration, voluntary

participation, risks, benefits, confidentiality, contact information, and the consent. The researcher

used the DLSU informed consent template as a basis for the creation of the informed consent.

The researcher will also be needing a stopwatch to keep track of the analyzing time that

will be given to the participant after the stimulus material is presented. The researcher will be

using the cellphone’s stopwatch feature. The phone will be an OPPO F5, model CPH1725,

ColorOS V3.2, Android version 7.1.1, and it has an octa core processor.
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 16

Procedure

The participants will be first presented with the consent form, briefing the participants of

the things that will be required from them. Next, the participants will be handed the

questionnaire. Afterwards, the assigned condition stimulus material to the participant will be

given. The stimulus materials will be given one at a time. The researcher will give the participant

one minute and thirty seconds to read and analyze the dilemma. Once the participant decides that

he or she is already confident with his or her response, the researcher will give the next stimulus

material; even if there is still time in the one minute and thirty seconds, if the participant decides

or believes that he or she is ready to move on then the researcher will reset the stopwatch and

move on. This step will repeat until the participant goes through all five of the dilemmas in the

condition. After the experiment, the researcher will debrief the participants about the experiment.

Methodological Limitations

A factor that may affect the internal validity of the experiment may include the changing

of the medium in delivering the dilemmas are presented. The researcher will address this by

sticking with the use of paper as the medium for delivering the dilemmas to the participants, if by

some chance the papers are damaged or tainted by water or any other substance, the researcher

will not try to continue with the experiment using the computer. Another factor detected by the

researcher, is that the participants may come in simultaneously. This can threaten the internal

validity as the participants may get a chance to converse about the experiment before and after it

has been conducted. The researcher plans on addressing this problem by utilizing a website that

will have a reservation for the time slots for the experiment. In this way, the participants will not
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 17

go to the site of the experiment simultaneously. Additionally, the factor of the participant

choosing a more deontological choice to avoid any judgement from the experimenter. The

researcher will address this by reassuring the participant that all responses will not be judged by

the experimenter, and that the experimenter will be seated on a separate table to give space to the

participant. Another threat to the study, is the participant “shotgunning” the questionnaire

because of lack of interest or in a hurry. This can be addressed by the reservation website, as the

participants will have the freedom to pick the time they are free within the given time slots by the

researcher.

Ethical Considerations

The researcher will be using an informed consent form, in order to brief that inform the

participants about the procedures, purpose, risks, and benefits that they will be subjected to. The

researcher will also uphold the participant’s confidentiality and anonymity by assigning codes or

pseudonyms to the participant and by destroying the gathered data after the defense of the

experiment. The researcher will respect the participant, if ever the participant backs out, by

destroying the data provided and by not holding a grudge against the participant. After the

experiment, the researcher will debrief the participant, to clarify and inform the participants

about the experiment. In line with the debriefing, if the researcher identifies that the participant is

distressed or feels discomfort after the experiment, the researcher will act to correct and

minimize the harm by recommending a professional to help out. The researcher will also not

tweak the data in any way, the data, even if it shows no significant effect, will be reported in the
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 18

final discussion. The researcher will not be exploiting any data gathered and will keep it

professional by not intertwining the experiment with a personal motivation or problem.

Appendix A

Image 1: Informed Consent Form (1)

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 19

Image 2 : Informed Consent Form (2)

Image 1 and Image 2 displays the sample informed consent form for the experiment effects of

morally challenging situations in the perception of commonality of beliefs. The first image

shows the script of the spiel that the researcher will use in the briefing of the participant. It is

followed by the purpose of the study. Afterwards, the step by step procedure is added, to give the

participants an idea of what to expect from the experiment. The duration is also provided; the

time given is an estimation of how long the experiment will last. The voluntary participation is

also added to inform the participants that they may opt to backout in the middle of the

experiment. Risks is the last information for the Image 1, the risks informs the participants of the

possible hazards that they will be encountering in the experiment. Image 2 contains the benefits,
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 20

confidentiality, and the contact information. The last section of the Image 2 is the consent that is

meant to be signed by the participants. The researcher used the template of the DLSU informed

consent form, in making the form.

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 21

References
Aksoy, O., & Weesie, J. (2012). ​Beliefs about the social orientations of others: A parametric test
of the triangle, false consensus, and cone hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48(1), 45–54.d​ oi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.009
Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2018). ​Clarifying Gender Differences in Moral
Dilemma Judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
194855061875587.​doi:10.1177/1948550618755873
Białek, M., Paruzel-Czachura, M., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral
dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. ​Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology​, ​85​, 103855.
Bui, N. H. (2012). False consensus in attitudes toward celebrities. ​Psychology of Popular Media
Culture​, ​1​(4), 236.
Cherry, K. (2019, June 30). ​How false consensus effect influences the way we think about others​.
Retrieved from ​www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-false-consensus-effect-2795030
Christensen, J. F., Flexas, A., Calabrese, M., Gut, N. K., & Gomila, A. (2014). ​Moral judgment
reloaded: a moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology,
5.​doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607
Coleman, M. D. (2016). ​Emotion and the False Consensus Effect. Current Psychology, 37(1),
58–64.​doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9489-0
Dunn, M., Thomas, J. O., Swift, W., & Burns, L. (2012). Elite athletes' estimates of the
prevalence of illicit drug use: evidence for the false consensus effect. ​Drug and alcohol
review​, ​31​(1), 27-32.
Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2018). Effects of
incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model.
Emotion,​ ​18(​ 7), 989.
Gendolla, G. H., & Wicklund, R. A. (2009). Self-focused attention, perspective-taking, and false
consensus. ​Social Psychology​, ​40​(2), 66-72.
Gobo, G. (2008). ​Introducing Qualitative Methods:​ ​Doing ethnography.​ London, : SAGE
Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9780857028976
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 22

Hee Sun, P. (2012). Culture, Need for Uniqueness, and the False Consensus Effect. Evolutionary
Behavioral Science​s, (1), 82. ​https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099
Lee, M., Sul, S., & Kim, H. (2018). ​Social observation increases deontological judgments in
moral dilemmas. Evolution and Human
Behavior.​doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.00
Mannarini, T., Roccato, M., & Russo, S. (2015). ​The false consensus effect: A trigger of
radicalization in locally unwanted land uses conflicts? Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 42, 76–81.​doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.001
Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). ​Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An
empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1),
72–90.​doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72
Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Białek, M., & Conway, P. (2018). Reading dilemmas in a foreign
language reduces both deontological and utilitarian response tendencies. ​Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition​, ​44​(2), 321.
Oostrom, J. K., Köbis, N. C., Ronay, R., & Cremers, M. (2017). ​False consensus in situational
judgment tests: What would others do? Journal of Research in Personality, 71,
33–45.​doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.09.001
Prinstein, M. J., & Wang, S. S. (2005). False consensus and adolescent peer contagion:
Examining discrepancies between perceptions and actual reported levels of friends’
deviant and health risk behaviors. ​Journal of abnormal child psychology,​ ​33(​ 3), 293-306.
Rabinowitz, M., Latella, L., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Beliefs about childhood vaccination
in the United States: Political ideology, false consensus, and the illusion of uniqueness.
PloS one, 11(7), e0158382.
Reid, Chelsea & Davis, Jody & Green, Jeffrey. (2013). The Power of Change: Interpersonal
Attraction as a Function of Attitude Similarity and Attitude Alignment. The Journal of
social psychology. 153. 700-19. 10.1080/00224545.2013.824404.
Reynolds, C. J., Knighten, K. R., & Conway, P. (2019). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is
deontological? Completing moral dilemmas in front of mirrors increases deontological
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT 23

but not utilitarian response tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103993.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.005
Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2018). ​The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral
dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74,
24–37.​doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.003
Rosenquist, J. N., Murabito, J., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). The spread of alcohol
consumption behavior in a large social network. ​Annals of internal medicine,​ ​152(​ 7), 426.
Roth, B., & Voskort, A. (2014). ​Stereotypes and false consensus: How financial professionals
predict risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 107,
553–565.​doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.05.006
Scaffidi Abbate, C., Boca, S., & Gendolla, G. H. (2016). Self-awareness, perspective-taking, and
egocentrism. ​Self and Identity,​ ​15(​ 4), 371-380.
Sokoloski, R., Markowitz, E. M., & Bidwell, D. (2018). ​Public estimates of support for offshore
wind energy: False consensus, pluralistic ignorance, and partisan effects. Energy Policy,
112, 45–55.​doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.005
Tirso, R., Geraci, L., & Saenz, G. D. (2019). Examining Underconfidence Among
High-Performing Students: A Test of the False Consensus Hypothesis. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.04.003
Vallentyne, P. (1989). Two types of moral dilemmas. ​Erkenntnis,​ ​30(​ 3), 301-318.
Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2009). What underlies the false consensus effect? How personal
opinion and disagreement affect perception of public opinion. ​International Journal of
Public Opinion Research,​ ​21(​ 1), 25-46.
Shou, Y., & Song, F. (2017). Decisions in moral dilemmas: The influence of subjective beliefs in
outcome probabilities. ​Judgment & Decision Making,​ ​12(​ 5).