Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:16:04.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IRRATIONALITY OF PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2018

Daniel Grosz Open the ORCID record for Daniel Grosz [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pluralistic ignorance is a social-psychological phenomenon in which an agent believes that their attitudes, feelings, and beliefs are different from those of others, despite the fact that their public behavior is identical. I argue that agents in standard cases of pluralistic ignorance are epistemically irrational. I accomplish this, first, by rebutting a recent argument for the rationality of pluralistic ignorance. Next, I offer a defeat-based argument against the epistemic rationality of pluralistic ignorance. Third, I examine a type of case in which the pluralistically ignorant agent's belief is irrational, despite the fact that this belief lacks a defeater. Finally, I consider instances of pluralistically ignorant agents whose beliefs are not irrational, but explain why such cases are not problematic for my main thesis. This critical discussion allows me to offer an important amendment to an extant account of pluralistic ignorance.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 195 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allport, F. H. 1924. Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. C. 2000. The Emperor's New Suit (1837). Zurich: North-South Books.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M. 2006. Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bjerring, J. C., Hansen, J. U. and Pedersen, N. J. L. L. 2014. ‘On the Rationality of Pluralistic Ignorance.’ Synthese, 191: 2445–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. S. 1987. ‘Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience.’ Journal of Philosophy, 84: 544–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbesleben, J. R. B. and Buckley, M. R. 2004. ‘Pluralistic Ignorance: Historical Development and Organizational Applications.’ Management Decision, 42: 126–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D. and Allport, F. H. 1931. Student Attitudes. Syracuse, NY: The Craftsman Press.Google Scholar
Kauffman, K. 1988. Prison Officers and Their World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Matza, D. 1964. Delinquency and Drift. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and McFarland, C. 1987. ‘Pluralistic Ignorance: When Similarity is Interpreted as Dissimilarity.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. and McFarland, C. 1991. ‘When Social Comparison Goes Awry: The Case of Pluralistic Ignorance.’ In Suls, J. and Wills, T. (eds), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, pp. 287–313. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. 1974. ‘The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion.’ Journal of Communication, 24: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, D. and Miller, D. 1993. ‘Pluralistic Ignorance and Alcohol Use on Campus: Some Consequences of Misperceiving the Social Norm.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 243–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schanck, R. L. 1932. ‘A Study of a Community and Its Groups and Institutions Conceived of as Behaviors of Individuals.’ Psychological Monographs, 43: i–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, C. L. and Prentice, D. 1998. ‘Exposing Pluralistic Ignorance to Reduce Alcohol Use Among College Students.’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 2150–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar