Many times, when we are in a group, we tend to give our opinion like the majority of its members, just because we don’t “clash”. Sometimes, however, this happens to other members of the group, who privately feel the same way as we do, but publicly adhere to the majority opinion.

This is what pluralistic ignorance is about , a phenomenon of social psychology that can appear in the face of opinions, beliefs, following rules… It also has a lot to do with the behaviour of offering help in emergency situations (the so-called “spectator effect”), which we will also see in detail throughout the article.

Pluralistic ignorance: what is it?

Pluralistic ignorance is a concept inherent to social psychology. This term emerged in 1931, from 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 such a position goes against the opinion of the majority within a group; thus, faced with an almost majority belief in a group, the person who thinks differently feels that he or she is a minority, and therefore does not express his or her true opinion.

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, because it is different from the majority.

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

Clarifications

In this way, when the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance occurs, people attribute (often wrongly) a majority attitude in the group, when in reality, its members, privately, express a different opinion about it.

In other words, what we express or say to 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 the one shared by most of the group members.

Why this denomination: “pluralistic ignorance”? Precisely because of this we commented: in a group, all members may share a vision of reality (plurally); 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.

Viewer effect: relationship with pluralistic ignorance

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

The effect of the viewer is a phenomenon that appears when faced with behaviors of needing or asking for help : it is that “the more viewers, in a situation that requires offering our help, the less likely it is to offer help, and the longer it takes for the person who needs it to receive it”.

That is, the effect of the viewer inhibits people’s altruistic response. This is due to three phenomena, among which is pluralistic ignorance, and that is:

  • The spread of responsibility
  • Pluralistic Ignorance
  • Apprehension about evaluation

To illustrate, let’s take an example. Let’s imagine we’re in the subway, and we see a man hitting his partner. There are many of us in the subway. What could happen? That we do not offer help to that person, because we unconsciously think “that someone else will help her”.

This is the effect of the spectator; if there are also many people in the subway, this omission of help on our part is easier to give, and it will take longer until the person receives help (if he or she finally does receive it).

Processes prior to helping behavior

In order to understand it better, we will see step by step what happens in the effect of the spectator, and what the three phenomena we have mentioned to explain it mean.

To continue with the example (although many others may be useful): there is a man who beats his partner in the subway, in front of other passengers. The processes previous to the helping behaviour and that lead 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, because “there is something wrong”. Here the pressure of time is already beginning 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 exercises its power; if the situation is ambiguous, we may have doubts as to whether the situation is an emergency or not .

Then pluralistic ignorance appears: we think “maybe if no one from the subway offers its help, it is that the situation is not an emergency” (wrong thinking).

Another thought we may have, which explains pluralistic ignorance, is: “I interpret the situation as an emergency, but the rest ignore it; therefore, I add to the ignorance”. Therefore, we continue to be unhelpful.

3. Dissemination of responsibility

This is when the third step or process prior to helping behaviour appears: we ask ourselves: “do I have any responsibility?

The spread of responsibility then appears, another phenomenon of social psychology, which explains the tendency to take responsibility away from us in a situation, when the group of people who observe it is large, and when we have not been offered explicit responsibility for it.

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

4. Apprehension of evaluation

In the fourth step of the viewer effect, apprehension of the evaluation appears. We ask ourselves, “Can I help?”

This response is influenced by the knowledge we have about the subject (for example our physical strength, our capacity for negotiation or assertiveness…) and by the anxiety about the evaluation others may make of our behaviour.

That is, and although it sounds 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 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 make a balance 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 them, the seriousness of the situation, its duration… As a result of all these processes, we finally decide whether to help or not.

Bibliographic 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. Editorial: S.A. McGraw-Hill / Interamericana de España.
  • Ugarte, I., De Lucas, J., Rodríguez, B., Paz, P.M. and Rovira, D. (1998). Pluralistic ignorance, attribution of causality and cognitive biases in the case. Revista de Psicología Social, 13(2): 321-330.