Pluralistic ignorance: when we believe in a false majority opinion

Many times, when we are in a group, we tend to think like the majority of its members, just for the fact of not "out of tune". However, sometimes this happens to the other members of the group, who in private think like us but who in public adhere to what the majority thinks.

This is what pluralistic ignorance is all about, a phenomenon of social psychology that can appear before opinions, beliefs, following norms... It 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 chapter. article.

• Related article: "The 3 types of compliance that affect us on a day-to-day basis"

Pluralistic ignorance: what is it?

Pluralistic ignorance is a concept of social psychology. This term arose in 1931, from the hand of Daniel Katz and Flyod H. allport.

These authors defined the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance as that tendency of people not to express their position or their point of view in relation to an issue because said position goes against what the majority thinks

within a collective; 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 have the true opinion of him.

In addition, this person believes (wrongly) that others think differently from him, when many times what happens is that many of the members of the group do not "dare" to express their true opinion either, because it is different from that of the most.

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

clarifications

In this way, when the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance occurs, people attribute (many times erroneous) a majority attitude in the group, when in reality, its members, privately, express a different opinion to the regard.

In other words, what we express or think 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 your opinion is shared by the majority of its members.

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

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

Bystander effect: relationship with pluralist 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 before behaviors of needing or asking for help: it is that "the more spectators, in a situation that requires offering our help, the less likely it is to offer help, and the more time elapses until the person who needs it receives it."

That is, the bystander effect inhibits people's altruistic response. This is due to three phenomena, among which is pluralistic ignorance, and which are:

• The diffusion of responsibility
• Pluralistic ignorance
• The apprehension before the evaluation

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

This is the bystander effect; If, in addition, there are many people in the subway, this omission of help on our part is easier given, and it will take longer for the person to receive help (if at all). receives).

Processes prior to helping behavior

So that it is better understood, we are going to see step by step what happens in the spectator effect, and what the three phenomena that we have mentioned to explain it mean.

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

1. Pay attention

The first thing we do is pay attention to the situation, since “there is something wrong”. Here the pressure of time already begins to exert itself: if we do not act, the situation may worsen.

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 the situation is an emergency or not.

Pluralist ignorance then appears: we think “perhaps if no person from the subway offers his help, it means that the situation is not an emergency” (erroneous thought).

Another thought that we can have, which explains pluralistic ignorance, is: “I interpret the situation as an emergency, but the rest ignore it; therefore, I join in ignorance.” Therefore, we continue without helping.

3. diffusion of responsibility

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

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

This translates, unconsciously, in that we evaded our responsibility in the situation, and we attribute it to others: “let others act”.

4. Apprehension of evaluation

In the fourth step of the bystander effect, evaluation apprehension appears. We ask ourselves: “can I help?”

This answer is influenced by the knowledge we have on the subject. (for example our physical strength, our ability to negotiate or assertiveness...) and by the anxiety of the evaluation that others may make of our behavior.

In other words, and although it sounds paradoxical, in a certain 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 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 of helping the victim.

A series of elements influence this step, which increase the probability that we will help: empathy for the victim, closeness with her, the seriousness of the situation, its duration... As a result of all these processes, we finally decided whether to help or No.

Bibliographic references:

• Hogg, M. (2010). Social psychology. Vaughan Graham M. Pan American. Publisher: 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 of Spain.
• 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.