Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how people make consensus estimates about outcomes (`success' or `failure') of their own, an in-group member's and an out-group member's performance within an intergroup context. In our experiment, "in-group" and "out-group" categories were defined according to the minimal-group paradigm. The participants were given arbitrary feedback on one of the performance outcomes regarding their own self, an in-group member and an out-group member, and assessments of consensus estimates for both in-group and out-group were observed. The results indicated that when they were informed of their own performance outcomes, they perceived high consensus for their own outcomes in the in-group (false consensus effect), but not in the out-group. On the other hand, when the information given was about the outcomes of an in-group member, they made a contrasting estimate against the out-group, while they had high consensus for outcomes similar to an in-group member in assessments about in-group. This contrast was also observed when the information given was about an out-group member. In this case, participants perceived high consensus about outcomes similar to an out-group member in assessments about out-group, but low for in-group. We discussed the differences in consensus that we observed between self-referent and other-referent information.
