Cited by 98Social and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationAcademic Freedom and Politics

The liberal illusion of uniqueness

Stern, Chadly, West, Tessa V., Schmitt, Peter G.·2014·Psychological Science

Abstract

In two studies, we demonstrated that liberals underestimate their similarity to other liberals (i.e., display truly false uniqueness), whereas moderates and conservatives overestimate their similarity to other moderates and conservatives (i.e., display truly false consensus; Studies 1 and 2). We further demonstrated that a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in the motivation to feel unique explains this ideological distinction in the accuracy of estimating similarity (Study 2). Implications of the accuracy of consensus estimates for mobilizing liberal and conservative political movements are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797613500796

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By challenging official narratives, conspiracy theories can undermine people's trust in broader societal structures, leading to alienation and anomie, which is linked to non-normative political activism.

    “by challenging official narratives conspiracy theories can actually undermine people's trust in broader societal structures [cf.56] leading to alienation and anomie [10-12, 57, 58] which in turn is linked to non-normative political activism [17**,18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stern, C., West, T. V., & Schmitt, P. G.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2013-11-18
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
137-144
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2122288715
Cited by
98
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
52.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
Keywords
false consensus effect, political ideology, liberals, conservatives, moderates, perceived similarity, self-perception, political mobilization, political movements
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Self Concept, Social Perception, Consensus, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review