Pluralistic ignorance: when we believe in a false majority opinion

Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon studied by social psychology and political psychology.

Many times, when we are in a group, we tend to have the same opinion as the majority of its members, just for the sake of not "not being out of tune". However, sometimes this happens to the other members of the group, who in private think as we do but in public adhere to what the majority thinks.

This is what pluralistic ignorance is all aboutIt is also closely related to the behaviors of offering help in emergency situations (the so-called "bystander effect"), which we will also see in detail throughout the article.

Pluralistic ignorance: what is it?

Pluralistic ignorance is a concept specific to social psychology. This term arose in 1931, from Daniel Katz and Flyod H. Allport.

These authors defined the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance as the tendency of people to tendency of people not to express their position or point of view in relation to a subject because this position goes against the opinion of the majority within a group; thus, pluralistic ignorance is the tendency of people not to express their opinion. within a group; thus, in the face of an almost majority belief in a group, the person who thinks differently feels like a minority, and therefore does not express his or her true opinion.

In addition, this person believes (wrongly) that others have a different opinion from him, when often what happens is that many of the members of the group do not "dare" to express their true opinion, because it is different from that of the majority.

Thus, according to pluralistic ignorance, people often hide what we really think about a subject, because we believe that others have a different opinion. That is, following the idea of this phenomenon, there is a tendency in the human being to be in tune with the others (whether in beliefs, thoughts, behaviors...); the fear of not being so generates this pluralistic ignorance (as far as expressing opinions is concerned).

Clarifications

Thus, when the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance occurs, people attribute (often erroneously) a majority attitude in the group, when in fact, its members, privately, express a different opinion on the matter.

That is to say, what we express or give our opinion before the group is not the same as what we express privately, with specific members of the group. However, We tend to believe that what people in a group think is what they really think, especially if their opinion is shared by the majority of its members.especially if their opinion is shared by the majority of its members.

Why this denomination: "pluralistic ignorance"? Precisely because of this: in a group, all members may share a vision of reality (pluralistically); this vision is false, but the fact of sharing it, makes it possible that real attitudes and behaviors that are shared privately among its members, continue to exist.

• You might be interested in: "Spiral of silence: what is it and what are its causes?"

Bystander effect: relationship with pluralistic ignorance.

On the other hand, pluralistic ignorance also has to do with another phenomenon in social psychology: the bystander effect.

The bystander effect is a phenomenon that appears in the face of behaviors of needing or asking for help.The bystander effect: "the more bystanders, in a situation that requires offering our help, the less likely we are to offer help, and the longer it takes for the person who needs it to receive it".

In other words, the bystander effect inhibits people's altruistic response. This is due to three phenomena, among which is pluralistic ignorance:

• The diffusion of responsibility
• Pluralistic ignorance
• Apprehension in the face of evaluation

To illustrate this, let's take an example. Let us imagine that we are in the subway, and we see how a man hits his partner. There are many of us in the subway. What can happen? That we do not offer help to that person, because we unconsciously think "that someone else will help him".

This is the bystander effect; if, in addition, there are many people in the subway, this omission of help on our part is more likely to occur, and it will take longer for the person to receive help (if he or she finally receives it).

Processes prior to the helping behavior

For a better understanding, let's see step by step what happens in the bystander effect, and what the three phenomena we have mentioned mean to explain it.

Continuing with the example (although many others can be used): there is a man who hits his partner in the subway, in front of other passengers. The processes that precede the helping behavior and lead to the final decision to help or not to help the victim are as followsThe processes prior to the helping behavior and leading to the final decision to help or not to help the victim are the following:

1. Paying attention

The first thing we do is to pay attention to the situation, since "there is something wrong". This is where the time pressure begins to exert itself: if we do not act, the situation may get worse.

2. Pluralistic ignorance

The second thing that happens is that we ask ourselves: is it an emergency? Here the clarity or ambiguity of the situation exerts its power; if the situation is ambiguous, we may have doubts as to whether or not the situation is an emergency..

Pluralistic ignorance then appears: we think "maybe if no one in the subway offers help, the situation is not an emergency" (erroneous thinking).

Another thought we may have, which explains pluralistic ignorance, is: "I interpret the situation as an emergency, but everyone else ignores it; therefore, I join in the ignorance". Therefore, we remain unhelpful.

3. Diffusion of responsibility

This is when the third step or process prior to the behavior of helping appears: we ask ourselves: "Do I have any responsibility?

Then appears the diffusion of responsibility, another phenomenon of social psychology, which explains the tendency to take less responsibility for a situation, when the group of people observing it is large, and when we have not been offered an explicit responsibility for it.

This translates, unconsciously, into us we shirk our responsibility for the situationand attribute it to others: "let others act".

4. Apprehension to evaluation

In the fourth step of the bystander effect, we become apprehensive about evaluation. We ask ourselves, "Can I help?"

Such a response is influenced by the knowledge we have about the subject. (e.g. our physical strength, our negotiation or assertiveness skills...) and by the anxiety to the evaluation that others may make of our behavior.

In other words, and although it may sound paradoxical, in a way we are afraid of "being judged for helping" or "being judged for how we are helping". As a result of this process, the following one appears.

5. Cost-reward balance

In the last process, which leads us to the final answer of whether or not we help the victim (we ask ourselves: "Do I help?"), we take stock of the costs and benefits, we take stock of the costs and benefits of helping the victim..

This step is influenced by a series of elements, which increase the probability that we will help: empathy for the victim, closeness to the victim, the seriousness of the situation, its duration... As a result of all these processes, we finally decide whether to help or not.

Bibliographical references:

• Hogg, M. (2010). Social psychology. Vaughan Graham M. Panamericana. Editorial: Panamericana.
• Krech, David and Richard S. Crutchfield. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Morales, J.F. (2007). Social psychology. Publisher: S.A. McGraw-Hill / Interamericana de España.
• Ugarte, I., De Lucas, J., Rodríguez, B., Paz, P.M. and Rovira, D. (1998). Pluralistic ignorance, causality attribution and cognitive biases in the case. Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2): 321-330.