The False Consensus Effect Disappears if Representative Information and Monetary Incentives Are Given

By Dirk Engelmann, Martin Strobel. 2000

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/605c6d9c66e17d322eb41e4cbb448b1b12703e6b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences (2011, background): “…because such beliefs are in principle consistent with Bayesian updating 24 (see Dawes, 1989) “consensus effect” is a more appropriate term (see also Engelmann and Strobel, 2000, for evidence from incentivized experiments).16 Another correlation we find is between UG offers and UG responder…”
Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis (2005, unknown): “According to another view, people do not give egocentrically inflated weights to self-referent information (Engelmann & Strobel, 2000).”
THE DECISION MAKER MATTERS: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP BEHAVIOUR IN EXPERIMENTAL BEAUTY- (2005, unknown): “Engelmann and Strobel (2000) have shown that this false consensus effect vanishes if subjects are given appropriate monetary incentives and representative information.”
Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three person-ultimatum game (2005, unknown): “Our expectation data reveal a rather strong false consensus effect (Mullen et al., 1985; Engelmann and Strobel, 2000) in that subjects expect their own behavior to be more common in the larger population than it is estimated by subjects who engage in alternative behavior.”
The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments (2012, background): “For a more general methodological discussion see Engelmann and Strobel (2000).”
Appendix for: Belief Elicitation in Experiments: Is There a Hedging Problem? (2010, unknown): “Hence we use the term “consensus effect” – following Engelmann and Strobel (2000).”
Relative Earnings and Giving in a Real-Effort Experiment (2011, background): “Amongst the field studies which investigate the relation between income and giving, the most interesting one for our purposes is Auten et al. (2000).”
A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs (2014, unknown): “Engelmann and Strobel (2000), using in-centivized belief elicitation, cannot reproduce the ‘false-consensus eﬀect’ found in psychological studies that do not incentivize elicitation.”