Overestimating the Prevalence of Vegans, Vegetarians and Reducetarians Reflects Basic Psychological Biases in Estimating Proportions

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
John B. Nezlek
{"title":"Overestimating the Prevalence of Vegans, Vegetarians and Reducetarians Reflects Basic Psychological Biases in Estimating Proportions","authors":"John B. Nezlek","doi":"10.1002/ijop.70239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In two studies, people estimated the percent of vegans, vegetarians, those following a reduced meat diet and omnivores for specific populations. In a study of Polish adults (<i>n</i> = 1038), participants provided estimates of the diets of Poles and of residents of the US. In a US student sample (<i>n</i> = 2538), participants provided estimates of the diets of their fellow students and of the US population. With a few exceptions, participants overestimated the sizes of dietary minorities (vegans, vegetarians, and reducetarians) and underestimated size of the dietary majority (omnivores). Moreover, these under- and overestimates did not vary systematically as a function of participant diet or vegetarian threat. Although women's estimates of the size of dietary minorities were larger than men's and women's estimates of the size of the omnivorous majority were smaller than men's, both men and women overestimated the percent of dietary minorities and underestimated the percent of omnivores. These misestimates reflect the operation of a general cognitive bias called ‘Uncertainty-Based Rescaling’, that has been found to explain why people consistently underestimate the sizes of majorities and overestimate the sizes of minorities without the need to infer the operation of biases due to similarity, threat and so forth.</p>","PeriodicalId":48146,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychology","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ijop.70239","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.70239","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In two studies, people estimated the percent of vegans, vegetarians, those following a reduced meat diet and omnivores for specific populations. In a study of Polish adults (n = 1038), participants provided estimates of the diets of Poles and of residents of the US. In a US student sample (n = 2538), participants provided estimates of the diets of their fellow students and of the US population. With a few exceptions, participants overestimated the sizes of dietary minorities (vegans, vegetarians, and reducetarians) and underestimated size of the dietary majority (omnivores). Moreover, these under- and overestimates did not vary systematically as a function of participant diet or vegetarian threat. Although women's estimates of the size of dietary minorities were larger than men's and women's estimates of the size of the omnivorous majority were smaller than men's, both men and women overestimated the percent of dietary minorities and underestimated the percent of omnivores. These misestimates reflect the operation of a general cognitive bias called ‘Uncertainty-Based Rescaling’, that has been found to explain why people consistently underestimate the sizes of majorities and overestimate the sizes of minorities without the need to infer the operation of biases due to similarity, threat and so forth.

高估纯素食者、素食者和减素食者的普遍程度反映了估计比例时的基本心理偏见。
在两项研究中,人们估计了纯素食者、素食者、减少肉类饮食者和杂食者在特定人群中的比例。在一项针对波兰成年人(n = 1038)的研究中,参与者提供了波兰人和美国居民的饮食估计。在一个美国学生样本(n = 2538)中,参与者提供了他们的同学和美国人口的饮食估计。除了少数例外,参与者高估了饮食中的少数人(纯素食者、素食者和减食者)的规模,低估了饮食中的大多数人(杂食者)的规模。此外,这些低估和高估并没有作为参与者饮食或素食威胁的功能而系统地变化。尽管女性对饮食中少数动物的估计比男性大,而女性对大多数杂食性动物的估计比男性小,但男性和女性都高估了饮食中少数动物的比例,而低估了杂食性动物的比例。这些错误的估计反映了一种被称为“基于不确定性的重新衡量”的普遍认知偏见的运作,这被发现可以解释为什么人们总是低估多数人的规模,高估少数人的规模,而不需要推断由于相似性、威胁等因素造成的偏见的运作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Psychology
International Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychology (IJP) is the journal of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and is published under the auspices of the Union. IJP seeks to support the IUPsyS in fostering the development of international psychological science. It aims to strengthen the dialog within psychology around the world and to facilitate communication among different areas of psychology and among psychologists from different cultural backgrounds. IJP is the outlet for empirical basic and applied studies and for reviews that either (a) incorporate perspectives from different areas or domains within psychology or across different disciplines, (b) test the culture-dependent validity of psychological theories, or (c) integrate literature from different regions in the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书