To assess if the false consensus effect can be replicated in the current PSYC102 cohort.

The false consensus effect can be described as one of the most discussed phenomena in the field of psychology, and it is normally presumed to provide an illustration of how attitudes normally shape people’s perceptions. This perception has however never been fully tested in psychology. It is also not clear whether it can be incorporated in the first-year course in psychology specifically PSYC102. This is a course that is meant to introduce learners to the scientific study of behavior. This report, therefore, seeks to provide an assessment of whether this incorporation is possible. Using a population of 241 people, the research questions the number of people who will be open to paying a penalty for over speeding as well as those who will contest the penalty. By using a t-test summary, the results showed that 100 people would easily pay the fine. This translates to a statistical mean of 61.80 with a standard deviation of 19.35. On the other hand, those who would contest the notice for penalty were 141 with a statistical mean of 46.17 and a standard deviation of 21.66.

False Consensus Effect in PSYC 102

Introduction

PSYC102 is a fundamental basic course in psychology. It provides an overview of psychology both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The course is meant to cover specialty areas that enable learners to examine skills applicable in graduate programs related to psychology, explore the broad spectrum of and specialization related to the field of psychology and it is also used as a pre-requisite introductory unit for other second-year psychology. The unit, however, keeps being restructured and new course content added. The question, however, is whether false consensus effect ought to be replicated in the course. The effect is a bias which explains that people mostly tend to overestimate the manner in which they give opinions, share beliefs as well as preferences. It explains that there is a general assumption that other people normally think in a manner similar to how others think and those who think contrary are probably wrong.

Psychologists argue that people who are in the same social class will think almost the same way. A software developer or a designer, for instance, will come up with an application that resonates with the challenges that most other developers are facing (Budiu, 2017). On the same note, it is right to assume that a person in one’s neighborhood could have voted for a similar presidential candidate to another neighbor. It is therefore so much weaved in man’s mind that other people can think like us.

The use of false-consensus effect in psychology can also be dated back to Ross, Greene and House who showed that psychologists always overestimate how other people make judgements and choices. Based on a series of experiments, Ross showed through a questionnaire that whatever a person thinks is likely to be what others think. For instance, if one estimates that 50% of a sample population is likely to choose to pay a fine for a speeding ticket, the chances are that results will be in the affirmative at the end.

Coleman (2016), has shown the correlation between emotion and the false consensus effect. Using 210 participants who were all undergraduate population, the study was undertaken online. The participants were supposed to make a decision between two forms of vacation and were made to fill either neutral, happy or sad (Coleman, 2016). After that, they were asked to approximate the percentage of people that would have a similar effect or an otherwise feeling. The results, however, showed a false consensus effect and they were consistent with valence-based theoretical accounts of emotional influence.

The hypothesis for this research was that in case of a contest between giving a speeding ticket against paying a fine, it was predicted that more people would choose the former rather than the latter.

Method

Participants

The number of participants used for this research was 241 people who were randomly selected.

Materials and procedure                                                                                               

Participants were supposed to estimate the percentage of people that were likely to choose either to contest a speeding ticket within the court of law versus those who would opt to pay a fine. After undertaking the estimates, participants also filled a questionnaire disclosing the personality traits of those that would make either of the two decisions. In statistical analysis, an independent t-test was used to determine possible statistical differences between the two groups in terms of mean and standard deviation, as will be shown in the results and discussion section.

Results

The results showed that out of the sampling population of 241, 100 people were expected to pay the fine while the rest (141) would contest the notice for penalty. The latter group meant a statistical mean of 61.80, with a standard deviation of 19.35. On the other hand, those that would contest for the notice of penalty were an average mean of 46.17 with a standard deviation of 21.66. According to the t-test, the group differences were t (239) = 5.76, p < 0.001and the mean difference between the groups was 15.63 percent. As per the t-test, this is a significant difference in the scores between the two groups. As predicted, more people were likely to contest the notice for penalty and hence was consistent with the hypothesis. The summary of the results is thus as indicated in table 1 below.

Table 1: t-test Results for People Who Will Pay a Penalty and Those Who Will Contest.

Group	N	Mean	Standard deviation
People that would pay the fine	100	61.80	19.35
People that would opt to contest for the notice of a penalty	141	46.17	21.66

Discussion

The main objective of this research was to assess whether a false consensus effect can be replicated in the current PSYC 102 cohort. The results derived herein show that the results obtained are a reflection of the earlier derived hypothesis. For instance, the hypothesis derived was that there is a likelihood of more people contesting the notice to pay a penalty than opting to pay a fine. The results obtained confirmed the hypothesis, which implies that the human mind well resonates with what other people seek to undertake. The t-test showed a significant difference between the two groups but with a minimal standard deviation from the mean.

The implication of these results is that it tends to conform so well to the original idea presented by Ross and Greene who pained a picture of the false-consensus effect like that for laymen psychologists. It is therefore right to assume that PSYC 102 which is an introductory course is linkable to laymen and hence there is a need to incorporate this effect in the unit. The broader implications of the findings are that there is a need to understand the building blocks of the basics of psychology. The strength of this result lies in the reliable analytical technique used since the t-test is scientifically reliable. Even though the results are reliable, it would however been better to use a bigger sample size.

Conclusion

 The results shown in this research reflects the need to expand the areas covered in PSYC102. Since the inception of false consensus effect in 1977, there is still much needed to prove the validity of its existence in psychology. This research has however made an effort to show the need to have such an effect in the unit as it will help expand the minds of learners in the introductory aspects of psychology.

References

Budiu (2017). You are not the user: The false-consensus effect. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/false-consensus/

Coleman, M. D. (2018). Emotion and the false consensus effect. Current Psychology, 37(1), 58-64.