Similarity and uniqueness: the effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual differences in self-esteem and depression.

Abstract

On the basis of a self-validation perspective, it was predicted that distortions in consensus estimates would vary as a function of attribute type (opinions versus abilities), relevance of the attribute, and individual differences in self-esteem and depression. Students rated themselves on seven opinion and ability dimensions using 5-point Likert scales. Then they estimated the percentage of the other students who held each opinion/ability position, and rank ordered the opinions/abilities for personal relevance. Absolute and directional accuracy scores were computed (comparing estimated percentages with actual percentages in the sample), as well as false consensus (FCE) scores (comparing estimates of subjects holding and not holding a particular position). Subjects overestimated consensus for their opinions and low abilities, but underestimated consensus for their high abilities. Although subjects exhibited a larger FCE on opinions than abilities, there was a reliable FCE for both attributes. Relevance affected the magnitude of these biases. Higher opinion relevance was associated with increased accuracy, lower FCE scores, and smaller overestimates. Higher ability relevance was associated with decreased accuracy, greater overestimation on low abilities, and greater underestimation on high abilities. Finally, low self-esteem and depressed subjects overestimated consensus on opinions and underestimated consensus on abilities less than high self-esteem and nondepressed subjects.