Salīdzināt metodes

	False Consensus Paradigm	Minimal Group Paradigm
Nozare	Sociālā psiholoģija	Sociālā psiholoģija
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	1977	1971
Autors	Lee Ross, David Greene & Pamela House	Henri Tajfel and colleagues
Tips	Experimental paradigm for social-perception bias	Experimental paradigm for intergroup discrimination
Pirmavots	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.	Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
Citi nosaukumi	False Consensus Effect, Egocentric Projection Paradigm, Consensus Estimation Task	Minimal Group Experiment, Tajfel Matrices, Mere Categorization Paradigm
Saistītās	3	3
Kopsavilkums	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.	The minimal group paradigm is an experimental procedure, introduced by Henri Tajfel and colleagues in 1971, that strips intergroup conflict down to its barest possible cause: mere categorization. Participants are sorted into two groups on a trivial or random basis (for example, an alleged preference for one painter over another, or a coin toss), never meet other members, gain nothing personally, and then allocate points between anonymous in-group and out-group members using structured reward matrices. The striking and repeatedly replicated finding is that people favor their own group even when the category is meaningless and favoritism brings them no material gain. The paradigm became the empirical cornerstone of social identity theory, demonstrating that the cognitive act of dividing the social world into 'us' and 'them' is itself sufficient to produce discrimination.