Explaining away the illusion of consensus.

Consensus among sources often signals a claim's trustworthiness. However, when all sources simply echo information from a single origin, an "illusion of consensus" can arise, leading individuals to feel equally convinced by a dependent consensus (a single, repeatedly cited source) as by an independe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Memory & Cognition Vol. 54; no. 5; pp. 1667 - 1688
Autores principales: Connor Desai, Saoirse, Fai, Jacqueline, Lee, Jaimie, Hayes, Brett K.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jul2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=195652883&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 195652883
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0090502X
        MEG
      jtl: Memory & Cognition
      issn: 0090502X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2026
      vid: 54
      iid: 5
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        195652883
        10.3758/s13421-025-01831-9
      ppf: 1667
      ppct: 21
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Explaining away the illusion of consensus.
      aug:
        au:
          Connor Desai, Saoirse
          Fai, Jacqueline
          Lee, Jaimie
          Hayes, Brett K.
        affil:
          https://ror.org/03f0f6041 School of Clinical and Health Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
          https://ror.org/03r8z3t63 University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
      su:
        Consensus (Social sciences)
        Social media
        Task performance
        Social perception
        Confidence
        Decision making
        Public opinion
        Judgment (Psychology)
        Practical politics
        Psychological tests
        Cognition
        Research funding
        Persuasion (Rhetoric)
        Probability theory
        Descriptive statistics
        Experimental design
        Causality (Physics)
        Statistics
        Data analysis software
      sug:
        subj:
          Consensus (Social sciences)
          Social media
          Task performance
          Social perception
          Confidence
          Decision making
          Public opinion
          Judgment (Psychology)
          Practical politics
          Psychological tests
          Cognition
          Research funding
          Persuasion (Rhetoric)
          Probability theory
          Descriptive statistics
          Experimental design
          Causality (Physics)
          Statistics
          Data analysis software
      keyword:
        Consensus
        Credibility
        Explanation
        Judgment
        Reasoning
        Repetition
        Consensus
        Credibility
        Explanation
        Judgment
        Reasoning
        Repetition
      ab: Consensus among sources often signals a claim's trustworthiness. However, when all sources simply echo information from a single origin, an "illusion of consensus" can arise, leading individuals to feel equally convinced by a dependent consensus (a single, repeatedly cited source) as by an independent consensus (corroborated information from multiple sources). This effect may occur because repetition can be perceived as a cue for credibility. We conducted four experiments to test whether a negative explanation (e.g., repetition was intended to sway opinion) or a positive explanation (repetition occurred because a source was especially reliable) for repetition of a claim could reduce or enhance the illusion of consensus. Participants engaged in a political poll-reporting task to assess confidence in claims supported by an independent consensus (news outlets citing different polling companies), a dependent consensus without explanation (news outlets citing the same polling company), or a dependent consensus accompanied by explanations intended to either boost or undermine source credibility. Independent consensus was more persuasive than dependent consensus. However, the persuasiveness of dependent consensus was increased or decreased, respectively, by positive or negative explanations for repetition. These effects were found when the explanations were supplied by the experimenter (Experiments 1-2a, 2b) and when participants generated their own explanations (Experiments 3, 4). These findings suggest that social inference processes contribute to the illusion of consensus, with implications for interventions designed to mitigate the impact of misleading claims repeated in media.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N