Losses, hopes, and expectations for sustainable futures after COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused immense distress but also created opportunity for radical change. Two main avenues for recovery from the pandemic have been discussed: A “back to normal” that foregrounds economic recovery, and a sustainable and progressive “build back better” approach that seeks to address global problems such as inequality and climate change. The article reports two experiments conducted on representative British and American samples (N = 600 and N = 800, respectively, for the two experiments) that show that people in both countries overall prefer a progressive future to a return to normal, although that preference is stronger on the political left and center-left with ambivalence prevailing on the right. However, irrespective of political leanings, people consider a return to normal more likely than a progressive future. People also mistakenly believe that others want the progressive scenarios less, and the return to normal more, than they actually do. The divergence between what people want and what they think others want represents an instance of pluralistic ignorance, which arises when public discourse is not reflecting people’s actual opinions. Publicizing public opinion is thus crucial to facilitate a future with broad support. In additional open-ended items, participants cited working from home, reduced commuting, and a collective sense of civility as worth retaining post pandemic.

Questionable and Open Research Practices: Attitudes and Perceptions among Quantitative Communication Researchers

Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices (QRPs) are believed to be widespread, evidence for this belief is, primarily, derived from other disciplines. Therefore, it is largely unknown to what extent QRPs are used in quantitative communication research and whether researchers embrace open research practices (ORPs). We surveyed first and corresponding authors of publications in the top-20 journals in communication science. Many researchers report using one or more QRPs. We find widespread pluralistic ignorance: QRPs are generally rejected, but researchers believe they are prevalent. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices. In all, our study has implications for theories in communication that rely upon a cumulative body of empirical work: these theories are negatively affected by QRPs but can gain credibility if based upon ORPs. We outline an agenda to move forward as a discipline.

Pluralistic Ignorance Research in Psychology: A Scoping Review of Topic and Method Variation and Directions for Future Research

Pluralistic ignorance occurs when group members mistakenly believe others’ cognitions and/or behaviors are systematically different from their own. More than 20 years have passed since the last review of pluralistic ignorance from a psychological framework, with more than 60 empirical articles assessing pluralistic ignorance published since then. Previous reviews took an almost entirely conceptual approach with minimal review of methodology, making existing reviews outdated and limited in the extent to which they can provide guidelines for researchers. The goal of this review is to evaluate and integrate the literature on pluralistic ignorance, clarify important conceptual issues, identify inconsistencies in the literature, and provide guidance for future research. We provide a comprehensive definition for the phenomenon, with a focus on its status as a group-level phenomenon. We highlight three areas of variation in particular in the current scoping review: variation in topics assessed, variation in measurement, and (especially) variation in methods for assessing the implications of individual-level misperceptions that, in aggregate, lead to pluralistic ignorance. By filling these gaps in the literature, we ultimately hope to motivate further analysis of the phenomenon.

Pluralistic Ignorance as a Contributing Factor to Concussion Underreporting

Background Concussion underreporting is endemic, and social norms are an established predictor of concussion reporting behavior. However, pluralistic ignorance—a situation in which most individuals in a group hold the belief that their peers’ views differ from their own, despite views actually being similar—has not been studied in this context. Aim To assess whether pluralistic ignorance contributes to concussion underreporting. Method We surveyed 2,504 military service academy cadets. Each cadet was presented with a survey asking about their willingness to self-report a concussion, their perception of other cadets’ willingness to report a concussion, and personal and demographic factors. Results Most cadets viewed themselves as more willing to report a concussion than others (mean difference = 1.12, 95% CI [1.02, 1.21]), a belief consistent with pluralistic ignorance. Demographic characteristics were associated with holding this belief. For example, female cadets and upper-class cadets were more likely to show this disparity than male or under-class cadets, respectively. Collegiate athletes not only showed similar willingness to report concussion as nonathletes but also perceived other cadets as less likely to report concussions. Meanwhile, future pilots showed less self-report willingness and perceived that others were similarly unwilling to report concussions. Discussion A majority of this economically and geographically diverse population displays characteristics of pluralistic ignorance: They largely share proconcussion reporting sentiments but incorrectly perceive that others do not. This belief is not held uniformly in all subpopulations, which may inform how these beliefs are developed and maintained. Conclusions Pluralistic ignorance is an important consideration in concussion education efforts.

The Impact of Laws on Norms Perceptions

When opinions in a society change toward more or less tolerance of a group, people do not necessarily see it. Drawing on a quasi-representative survey (Study 1, N = 830) and a natural experiment (Study 2, N = 437), we investigated people’s perceptions of the societal norms toward sexual minorities and the influence of laws on these (mis-)perceptions. Study 1 indicated pluralistic ignorance as participants overestimated the societal disapproval toward same-sex issues. Complementing this finding, Study 2 found that informing participants about a new law legalizing stepchild adoption decreased perceived societal disapproval of same-sex parenting compared with participants not informed about the law. Pluralistic ignorance, however, was not affected by the new law. While results indicate that pluralistic ignorance may be more resilient to change, they also highlight that laws can have a dual impact on societies, changing not only the legal situation but also shifting perceptions of societal norms.