A Replication of Stern, West, and Schmitt (2014) Indicates Less False Consensus Among Liberals Than Conservatives, But No False Uniqueness

Stern, West, and Schmitt (2014) reported that liberals display truly false uniqueness in contrast to moderates and conservatives who display truly false consensus. We conducted a close, preregistered replication of Stern et al.'s (2014) research with a large sample (N = 1,005). Liberals, modera...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany) Germany), 2021-05, Vol.52 (3), p.197-202
Hauptverfasser: Blanchar, John C., Alonzo, Michael, Ayoh, Christine, Blain, Kali, Espinoza, Leslie, Estrada, Marcos, Gillen, Jared, Marquez, Atziri, Miao, Joanne, Overbeck, Victoria, Slosky, Camryn, Srivatsan, Shruthi, Talley, Elise, Tucker, Justin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Stern, West, and Schmitt (2014) reported that liberals display truly false uniqueness in contrast to moderates and conservatives who display truly false consensus. We conducted a close, preregistered replication of Stern et al.'s (2014) research with a large sample (N = 1,005). Liberals, moderates, and conservatives demonstrated the truly false consensus effect by overestimating ingroup consensus. False consensus was strongest among conservatives, followed by moderates, and weakest among liberals. However, liberals did score higher than moderates and conservatives on the need for uniqueness scale, which partially accounted for the difference in false consensus between liberals and conservatives. Overall, our data align with Stern et al.'s (2014) in demonstrating left-right ideological differences in the overestimation of ingroup consensus but fall short of illustrating a liberal illusion of uniqueness.
ISSN:1864-9335
2151-2590
DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000448