↓ Skip to main content

Bias and ignorance in demographic perception

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 1,169)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
155 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bias and ignorance in demographic perception
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13423-017-1360-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Landy, B. Guay, T. Marghetis

Abstract

When it comes to knowledge of demographic facts, misinformation appears to be the norm. Americans massively overestimate the proportions of their fellow citizens who are immigrants, Muslim, LGBTQ, and Latino, but underestimate those who are White or Christian. Previous explanations of these estimation errors have invoked topic-specific mechanisms such as xenophobia or media bias. We reconsidered this pattern of errors in the light of more than 30 years of research on the psychological processes involved in proportion estimation and decision-making under uncertainty. In two publicly available datasets featuring demographic estimates from 14 countries, we found that proportion estimates of national demographics correspond closely to what is found in laboratory studies of quantitative estimates more generally. Biases in demographic estimation, therefore, are part of a very general pattern of human psychology-independent of the particular topic or demographic under consideration-that explains most of the error in estimates of the size of politically salient populations. By situating demographic estimates within a broader understanding of general quantity estimation, these results demand reevaluation of both topic-specific misinformation about demographic facts and topic-specific explanations of demographic ignorance, such as media bias and xenophobia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 155 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 22%
Psychology 13 19%
Computer Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2024.
All research outputs
#265,228
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#24
of 1,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,511
of 328,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.