Pluralistic ignorance and misperception of social norms concerning cheating in dating relationships

Two studies tested the hypothesis that beliefs about infidelity in dating relationships reflect pluralistic ignorance, a misperception in which people mistakenly believe that their own personal attitudes and behavior differ from others' when they do not. Consistent with pluralistic ignorance findings in other domains, undergraduates reported that the average university student (a) saw dating infidelity as more acceptable and (b) engaged in unfaithful acts more frequently than they themselves did. Neither type of infidelity (sexual, emotional, both sexual and emotional, or unspecified; Study 1, N = 176) nor motivated reasoning (i.e., defensiveness; Study 2, N = 359) moderated this pattern of results. Possible sources of misperceived norms concerning fidelity in dating relationships and the implications of such misperceptions are discussed.     

On the rationality of pluralistic ignorance

Pluralistic ignorance is a socio-psychological phenomenon that involves a systematic discrepancy between people’s private beliefs and public behavior in certain social contexts. Recently, pluralistic ignorance has gained increased attention in formal and social epistemology. But to get clear on what precisely a formal and social epistemological account of pluralistic ignorance should look like, we need answers to at least the following two questions: What exactly is the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance? And can the phenomenon arise among perfectly rational agents? In this paper, we propose answers to both these questions. First, we characterize different versions of pluralistic ignorance and define the version that we claim most adequately captures the examples cited as paradigmatic cases of pluralistic ignorance in the literature. In doing so, we will stress certain key epistemic and social interactive aspects of the phenomenon. Second, given our characterization of pluralistic ignorance, we argue that the phenomenon can indeed arise in groups of perfectly rational agents. This, in turn, ensures that the tools of formal epistemology can be fully utilized to reason about pluralistic ignorance.     

Pluralistic Ignorance and Health Risk Behaviors: Do College Students Misperceive Social Approval for Risky Behaviors on Campus and in Media?

Pluralistic ignorance is a psychological state in which individuals believe that their own beliefs and feelings differ from others' in a group despite the fact that they all behave similarly (Miller & McFarland, 1991). For example, college students reported that they were less comfortable with campus drinking than were other students on their campus (Prentice & Miller, 1993). We replicated this finding and investigated whether college students would show this pluralistic ignorance effect for other health-related risk behaviors (smoking, sexual behavior, and illegal drug use). In addition, we tested whether media portrayals of these behaviors also might result in pluralistic ignorance. The results show that a significant effect of pluralistic ignorance occurred for all 4 health-related risk behaviors, both in ratings of campus behaviors and in ratings of media portrayals of these behaviors. Participants indicated that other students on their campus would have higher comfort ratings with campus patterns of smoking, drinking, illegal drug use, and sexual behaviors than their own comfort ratings. Participants also indicated that other students would have higher comfort ratings with the same 4 behaviors as they are portrayed in the media than their own comfort ratings.     

Pluralistic ignorance in revenge attitudes and behavior in interpersonal relationships

We investigated whether people's perceptions of social norms concerning interpersonal revenge reflect a tendency for individuals to believe that others' revenge attitudes and behavior differ from their own (i.e., pluralistic ignorance). As part of a survey on revenge experiences in relationships with romantic partners, family members, and associates (e.g., friends), participants (N = 534) judged the acceptability and frequency of revenge in significant personal relationships. As expected, participants believed that others (a) saw revenge as more acceptable and (b) engaged in revenge more frequently than they did themselves. They did not, however, perceive others' revenge attitudes and behaviors to be any more variable than their own attitudes and behaviors actually were. Explanations for and implications of these findings are discussed.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Substance and Semantics

For both theoretical and practical reasons, researchers have sought to map the motivations that underlie people's support for or opposition to affirmative action. In view of the amount of rhetoric surrounding the issues, it is possible that some of the apparent differences in degrees of support come from differences in how the words affirmative action are interpreted. The present investigation shows that the meanings that people ascribe to affirmative action statistically predict their attitudes toward the policy, even after one accounts for demographic and related attitudinal factors. The implications of our findings are important in both applied and conceptual ways.     

Attitudes about Affirmative Action for Women: The Role of Children in Shaping Parents’ Interests

This paper uses pooled cross-sectional data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 General Social Surveys (GSS), a nationally representative sample of the U.S. adult population, to assess how employed parents’ attitudes about affirmative action for women are influenced by their children’s gender. The analytic sample includes 1,695 employed respondents. Findings based on logistic regression indicate that having daughters (and no sons) magnifies employed mothers’ support for affirmative action for women and minimizes employed fathers’ support. Conversely, having sons (and no daughters) does not suppress mothers’ support for affirmative action for women, nor does it differentiate men’s attitudes about affirmative action. We speculate about how these patterns in parents’ attitudes relate to self interest and group interest (i.e., their children’s future work experiences).     

Choosing social situations: Investigating the origins of correspondence between attitudes and behavior

By choosing to enter and spend time in those social situations that will dispose them to perform the actions implied by their personal attitudes, individuals may generate correspondence between their attitudes and their behavior. To investigate this process, we allowed individuals to choose whether to enter and spend time in a social situation that supported the behavioral expression of attitudes favorable toward affirmative action. For low-self-monitoring individuals, those with favorable attitudes toward affirmative action were substantially more willing than were those with unfavorable attitudes to enter and spend time in this social situation. For high self-monitoring individuals, willingness to enter and spend time in this social situation was unrelated to personal attitudes toward affirmative action; at the same time, high self-monitoring females were more likely than high self-monitoring males to choose to enter and to spend time in this social situation. Implications of these findings for understanding the links between self-monitoring processes and the origins of correspondence between attitudes and behavior were discussed.     

Sexuality attitudes and behaviors of self-described very religious urban students in middle school

Data from a survey of 869 students aged 11 to 15 years and attending six urban middle schools were analyzed to identify differences in sex attitudes and behaviors between self-reported very religious students and their less religious peers. The two groups were demographically similar. They differed on only two attitude items, one suggesting that intercourse was a normal part of teenage dating and the other suggesting intercourse was alright if the two people were in love. The groups did not differ in their estimation of their peers' sexual activity or attitude or in terms of their own intercourse behavior or future intentions.     

Sterba on Affirmative Action,or, it Never was the bus,it was Us!

Professor Sterba argues for two interesting and provocative positions regarding affirmative action. First, affirmative action programs are still needed to ensure diversity in educational institutions of higher learning. Secondly, the proponents and opponents of affirmative action are not as far apart as they seem to think. To this end, he proposes a position that would give weight to race as a category for affirmative action that can withstand the challenges of affirmative action opponents while giving the needed support for affirmative action proponents. It is his contention that both sides can support arguments for diversity affirmative action. This paper raises concerns about the ability of arguments for racial diversity to resolve or bring together opponents and proponents of affirmative action. It is argued that the negative social climate, regarding the social and intellectual merits of black Americans, works against the acceptance of affirmative action programs. In sum, it is argued that Professor Sterba’s position continues to put the social onus of changing racial attitudes on blacks with little or no effort on the part of whites other than allowing blacks admittance to formerly segregated educational institutions to interact with white students.     

A Comparison of Personal Project Motives in Three Age Groups

This study examined the extent to which adolescents systematically perceive a discrepancy between private and group norms about the acceptability of bullying and examined the association between norm estimation and actual bystander behavior. Ninety-one 8th graders (42 male and 49 female) described their personal attitudes about bullies and victims as well as their perceptions of their classmates' attitudes. Teachers rated adolescents' participant roles during bullying episodes at school. Results provided support for the premise that teens systematically perceive their peers to hold less prosocial views (e.g., to be more tolerant of bullies, less empathic toward victims, and less inclined to believe they have a responsibility to protect victims) than they themselves do. This tendency to perceive oneself as “out of step” with the group (i.e., pluralistic ignorance) was particularly salient among girls. In addition, there was a significant association between perceived self–other discrepancy in attitudes toward bullying and adolescents' actual bystander behavior when confronted by peer harassment. The more students viewed themselves as out-of-step with group norms about bullying, the higher their teacher-rated scores on passive bystander behavior. Potential implications of these findings and future directions are discussed.     

GENDER, DISCRIMINATION BELIEFS, GROUP-BASED GUILT, AND RESPONSES TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR AUSTRALIAN WOMEN

Views of a selection committee's decision to promote a woman over a man on the basis of affirmative action were studied in a random sample of Australians (118 men and 111 women). The relations between perceptions of workplace gender discrimination, feelings of collective responsibility and guilt for discrimination, and judgments of entitlement to and, secondarily, deservingness of affirmative action were examined. AMOS analyses indicated that men's reports of collective guilt predicted attitudes toward women's entitlement. No coherent model was observed for women, which suggested ambivalent attitudes toward affirmative action. Gender differences in discrimination beliefs also suggested that women believe men are unfairly advantaged and that men believe women are responsible for their own disadvantage. Implications for research examining collective emotions and their role in social justice judgments are discussed.     

Justice and power: when will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law?

Two studies are presented which test whether justice can motivate support for government policies and authorities even when such support is not in people's obvious personal or group interest. In the first study, White San Francisco Bay area residents' attitudes toward Congressionally-authored affirmative action policies and anti-discrimination laws were investigated. In the second study, African-American San Francisco Bay area residents' feelings of obligation to obey the law were investigated. The results from both studies show a significant relationship between evaluations of social justice and respondents' political attitudes. More importantly, a significant relationship between relational evaluations of Congress and political attitudes is found in both studies. This relationship suggests how justice can motivate policy and government support even if such support does not yield direct personal or group benefits. Finally, the results from both studies indicate when instrumental and relational concerns will be related to political attitudes. If people identified with their particular advantaged or disadvantaged group, instrumental concerns were more strongly related to their political attitudes, but if people identified with a superordinate category that included both potential outgroup members and relevant superordinate authorities, relational concerns were more strongly related to their political attitudes.     

The Role of Pluralistic Ignorance in the Reporting of Sexual Harassment

There have been many attempts to explain how and why people report incidents of sexual harassment. One area that has been overlooked is the influence of the targets' social cognition processes on these reports, particularly social comparison processes such as pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is a social comparison phenomenon whereby individuals mistakenly believe they are in the minority. In the case of harassment, pluralistic ignorance occurs when individuals mistakenly interpret the behavioral responses of others to mistakenly believe that they are alone in their discomfort with harassment. We investigated the role of pluralistic ignorance in this process by exposing undergraduate students to sexist jokes while manipulating their access to behavioral responses of others. We measured their comfort level and their perceptions of the humor of the jokes. We compared their responses, most importantly, with how many jokes they read prior to “reporting” their discomfort with the jokes. We found evidence for the proposed role of pluralistic ignorance in the sexual harassment reporting process, whereby exposure to behavioral responses of others influences perceptions of others' relative comfort and humor, which in turn led to a decreased likelihood of reporting the harassment.     

The Role of Attitudes and Awareness in Anti-Violence Education

Summary

Most interventions for the prevention of violence in relationships aim at attitudes and awareness. Prevailing attitudes in our society already condemn violence, however, and wife assault is viewed as particularly serious. Some research shows that perpetrators have attitudes more supportive of violence than other people do, but the link between attitudes and behavior can be complex. Trying to persuade people to change their attitudes in one direction can lead instead to people taking more extreme versions of their existing attitudes. Some interventions that raise awareness and promote availability of services appear to teach participants to take the problem less seriously. Most students report neither undesirable attitudes nor low awareness of violence in relationships. But their behavior appears inconsistent with their reported attitudes and awareness. If interpersonal violence has its roots in a problem more fundamental than the views of contemporary society, then anti-violence education based on attitudes and awareness will have limited benefits, and possibly some harmful effects. This article encourages a cautious rethinking of assumptions underlying current anti-violence education and alternative theories of violent behavior. It offers some suggestions for ways to reduce violent behavior, and encourages integration of violence prevention efforts into regular curricula and extra-curricular activities.     

Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward

As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy and foreign-born blacks; (4) stigmatizes its beneficiaries; and (5) compromises the self-esteem and self-respect of beneficiaries who know that they have been awarded preferential treatment. By way of a thought experiment, imagine that after decades of public policy and experimentation, the United States public finally came to agree: affirmative action is morally and legally wrong. Employing such a thought experiment, this essay by a beneficiary of affirmative action—written in response to James Sterba’s Affirmative Action for the Future (2009)—examines duties of moral repair and the possibility that the past beneficiaries of affirmative action owe apologies, compensation or some other highly personal form of corrective accountability. Beneficiaries of affirmative action have experienced woundedness and moral insecurity. Indeed, the practice of affirmative action comes with a psychology, a set of psychological benefits and burdens whose moral logic those of us who believe in our own fallibility—as much as we believe in the justice of what we have received and conferred on others—should address.     

Quotas and affirmative action: Understanding group‐based outcomes and attitudes

More and more countries are adopting quotas to increase group‐based equality in the boardroom and the political sphere. Nevertheless, affirmative action in general and quotas in particular remain a highly controversial subject—eliciting negative reactions from privileged groups, while support among minority and lower‐status groups is generally higher. Focusing on gender, we take a broad approach to the topic and discuss (a) the effects of quotas and affirmative action on the under‐representation of minority groups and on perceptions of their competence, (b) the effects of quotas and affirmative action on organisational performance, and (c) predictors of attitudes towards affirmative action and quotas. We conclude that the benefits of quotas outweigh their costs and that they are an effective way of tackling group‐based inequality. We also discuss strategies that can be used to elicit more support among those groups that are particularly critical of quotas.     

Support for Race‐Based Affirmative Action: Self‐interest and Procedural Justice1

The current study examines attitudes toward affirmative action. Hypotheses related to self‐interest concerning perceptions of the benefits of affirmative action and hypotheses derived from procedural justice research regarding the structure of policy statements both received support. A survey completed by 387 undergraduate and graduate student participants found greater perception of benefits resulting from affirmative action policies, defined in terms of increased opportunity (concrete benefit) and increased satisfaction (abstract benefit), related to greater support for affirmative action. Policies presented with justification received more support than did policies presented without justification. Ethnicity did not directly affect support for affirmative action; however, ethnicity did affect perceptions of the benefits of affirmative action. Perceptions of the benefits of affirmative action mediated ethnicity effects. Suggestions for increasing support for affirmative action are provided.     

The Influence of Education on Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: The Role of the Policy's Strength

The present research examined the influence of education on attitudes toward affirmative action. Studies 1 and 2 showed no impact of education on attitudes toward “soft” policies of affirmative action. In contrast, they showed less support of the more educated to “hard” policies of affirmative action. Neither prejudice (Study 2), nor understanding of the affirmative‐action policies (Study 3) accounted for this effect. Study 4 demonstrated that the education effect is mediated by the threat posed by strong plans to meritocratic beliefs. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action

Supporters and opponents of affirmative action are often characterized as debating about a single, consensually understood type of affirmative action. However, supporters and opponents instead may have different types of policies in mind when thinking about affirmative action and may actually agree on specific manifestations of affirmative action policies more than is commonly believed. A survey conducted using a student sample and a sample from the broader Chicago-area community showed that affirmative action policies can be characterized into merit-violating versus merit-upholding manifestations. Supporters of affirmative action in general were more likely to think of affirmative action in its merit-upholding manifestations, whereas opponents were more likely to think of the merit-violating manifestations. However, both supporters and opponents showed more support for merit-upholding rather than merit-violating manifestations of affirmative action. The same pattern of results was upheld even when splitting the samples into those who endorsed negative racial attitudes versus those who did not, suggesting that even those who may be considered racist will endorse affirmative action policies that uphold merit values. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of clarifying the political discourse about what affirmative action is and what it is designed to do.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: A Comparison of Color-Blind Versus Modern Racist Attitudes

In the hotly contested issue of affirmative action, detractors maintain that the use of race-conscious policies to remedy past discrimination is contraindicative of a color-blind society. Supporters of affirmative action maintain that while a color-blind society may be desirable, acts of past discrimination and current institutional racism make it necessary to use race-conscious policies. Past research has shown that the demographic variables of race and sex, as well as modern racist attitudes predict attitudes toward affirmative action. This investigation examined the relationship between color-blind attitudes, modern racist attitudes, and attitudes toward affirmative action. Results confirmed a positive relationship between modern racism and color-blind attitudes. After controlling for race and sex, colorblind attitudes emerged as the strongest predictor of attitudes toward affirmative action, followed by modern racism.