Cargando…

Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours

This study was concerned with how accurate people are in their knowledge of population norms and statistics concerning such things as the economic, health and religious status of a nation and how those estimates are related to their own demography (e.g age, sex), ideology (political and religious be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Furnham, Adrian, Arnulf, Jan Ketil, Robinson, Charlotte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34937066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260042
_version_ 1784619349019983872
author Furnham, Adrian
Arnulf, Jan Ketil
Robinson, Charlotte
author_facet Furnham, Adrian
Arnulf, Jan Ketil
Robinson, Charlotte
author_sort Furnham, Adrian
collection PubMed
description This study was concerned with how accurate people are in their knowledge of population norms and statistics concerning such things as the economic, health and religious status of a nation and how those estimates are related to their own demography (e.g age, sex), ideology (political and religious beliefs) and intelligence. Just over 600 adults were asked to make 25 population estimates for Great Britain, including religious (church/mosque attendance) and economic (income, state benefits, car/house ownership) factors as well as estimates like the number of gay people, immigrants, smokers etc. They were reasonably accurate for things like car ownership, criminal record, vegetarianism and voting but seriously overestimated numbers related to minorities such as the prevalence of gay people, muslims and people not born in the UK. Conversely there was a significant underestimation of people receiving state benefits, having a criminal record or a private health insurance. Correlations between select variables and magnitude and absolute accuracy showed religiousness and IQ most significant correlates. Religious people were less, and intelligent people more, accurate in their estimates. A factor analysis of the estimates revealed five interpretable factors. Regressions were calculated onto these factors and showed how these individual differences accounted for as much as 14% of the variance. Implications and limitations are acknowledged.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8694410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86944102021-12-23 Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours Furnham, Adrian Arnulf, Jan Ketil Robinson, Charlotte PLoS One Research Article This study was concerned with how accurate people are in their knowledge of population norms and statistics concerning such things as the economic, health and religious status of a nation and how those estimates are related to their own demography (e.g age, sex), ideology (political and religious beliefs) and intelligence. Just over 600 adults were asked to make 25 population estimates for Great Britain, including religious (church/mosque attendance) and economic (income, state benefits, car/house ownership) factors as well as estimates like the number of gay people, immigrants, smokers etc. They were reasonably accurate for things like car ownership, criminal record, vegetarianism and voting but seriously overestimated numbers related to minorities such as the prevalence of gay people, muslims and people not born in the UK. Conversely there was a significant underestimation of people receiving state benefits, having a criminal record or a private health insurance. Correlations between select variables and magnitude and absolute accuracy showed religiousness and IQ most significant correlates. Religious people were less, and intelligent people more, accurate in their estimates. A factor analysis of the estimates revealed five interpretable factors. Regressions were calculated onto these factors and showed how these individual differences accounted for as much as 14% of the variance. Implications and limitations are acknowledged. Public Library of Science 2021-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8694410/ /pubmed/34937066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260042 Text en © 2021 Furnham et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Furnham, Adrian
Arnulf, Jan Ketil
Robinson, Charlotte
Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title_full Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title_fullStr Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title_full_unstemmed Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title_short Unobtrusive measures of prejudice: Estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
title_sort unobtrusive measures of prejudice: estimating percentages of public beliefs and behaviours
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34937066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260042
work_keys_str_mv AT furnhamadrian unobtrusivemeasuresofprejudiceestimatingpercentagesofpublicbeliefsandbehaviours
AT arnulfjanketil unobtrusivemeasuresofprejudiceestimatingpercentagesofpublicbeliefsandbehaviours
AT robinsoncharlotte unobtrusivemeasuresofprejudiceestimatingpercentagesofpublicbeliefsandbehaviours