{"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.
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.