Pluralistic ignorance of meta-norms: Overestimating the appropriateness of punishment severity on social media

Abstract

Controversial statements posted on social media often appear to elicit disproportionately severe punitive responses. However, research suggests that such reactions may be driven by a small subset of users, indicating a possible gap between perceived and actual norms regarding punishment severity. This study investigated whether pluralistic ignorance exists concerning meta-norms, and shared beliefs about what is considered an appropriate level of punishment. We conducted two surveys through a crowdsourcing platform: Study 1 included 404 participants, and Study 2 involved 280 participants, all of whom maintained active X (formerly Twitter) accounts. Participants viewed posts that featured instances of excessive punishment and were asked to evaluate both their own attitudes and their perceptions of others’ attitudes toward these responses. Results showed that while pluralistic ignorance was not observed, participants consistently overestimated others’ endorsement of excessive punishment. These findings highlight the role of social media’s structural and communicative features in fostering misperceptions of meta-norms.