The “Golden Section” and Bias in Perceptions of Social Consensus

Meta-analytic examination of 128 false consensus effect issues supports the hypothesis that the “Golden Section” (61.8% group size) approximates the level of actual consensus that separates overestimation of consensus from underestimation, and the Golden Section holds for majorities and minorities defined by agreement with an issue.

Abstract

Meta-analytic examination of I28 false consensus effect issues supports the hypothesis that the "Golden Section" (61.8% group size) approximates the level of actual consensus that separates overestimation of consensus (group size 61.8%). Overestimation of the actual percentage of others who endorse one's own view increases as actual consensus decreases from 61.8%, and underestimation increases as it exceeds 61.8%. The form of the response (viz, a yes or no answer to a question) moderates this conclusion. The Golden Section holds for majorities and minorities defined by agreement with an issue. For majority and minority groups defined by disagreement, the inflection point is higher. Contrary to Mullen and Hu (1988), for agreeing majorities, the slope for consensus underestimation as a function of increased majority size does not differ from that of minority overestimation.