Competitive and noncompetitive relationships were imposed between the two experimentally created groups according to the minimal-group paradigm. The 236 university participants received feedback either of their own success or failure performance outcomes, or an in-group member's success or failure performance outcomes. Control participants received no performance feedback. The results showed that participants given feedback of their own performance outcomes perceived high consensus for outcomes similar to their own in the in-group (false consensus effect), but not in the out-group both in competitive and noncompetitive intergroup conditions. Participants given feedback of an in-group member's performance outcomes perceived high consensus in the in-group, while they perceived low consensus in the out-group. This contrast pattern was more salient in the competitive than the noncompetitive intergroup condition. These results revealed interactive effects of intergroup contexts and feedback information on consensus estimates.
