방법 비교

	Cover Story Deception	False Consensus Paradigm
분야	사회심리학	사회심리학
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	1959	1977
창시자	Classic experimental social psychology	Lee Ross, David Greene & Pamela House
유형	Methodological design controlling participant expectations	Experimental paradigm for social-perception bias
원전	Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.	Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301.
별칭	Deception Design, Cover Story Method, Experimental Deception	False Consensus Effect, Egocentric Projection Paradigm, Consensus Estimation Task
관련	3	3
요약	Cover story and deception design is the methodological practice of concealing a study's true purpose behind a plausible false rationale so that participants behave spontaneously rather than in line with what they think the experimenter wants. Because people who guess a study's hypothesis may consciously or unconsciously alter their behavior -- the problem of demand characteristics -- social psychologists often present a cover story that misdirects attention, embed the real dependent measure within an apparently unrelated task, and, when necessary, use additional deceptions such as confederates or false feedback. This approach made possible many of the field's classic findings on conformity, obedience, helping, and dissonance, where awareness of the true question would have destroyed the phenomenon. Deception carries serious ethical obligations, requiring justification, minimization of harm, suspicion probing, and thorough debriefing, which contemporary practice and ethics codes strictly govern.	The false consensus paradigm, established by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, demonstrates a pervasive bias in social perception: people overestimate the extent to which others share their own choices, beliefs, and behaviors. In the canonical procedure, participants indicate their own position on some issue or choice -- famously, whether they would walk around campus wearing a sandwich-board sign -- and then estimate what proportion of their peers would do the same. The signature finding is that those who choose a given option estimate that option to be more common than do those who reject it, so each group projects its own response onto others. Ross and colleagues also showed that people view their own responses as relatively common and unrevealing of personality while seeing differing responses as uncommon and diagnostic of others' traits. The paradigm became a foundational demonstration of egocentric bias in social judgment and attribution.