Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups

Americans dramatically overestimate the size of African American, Latino, Muslim, Asian, Jewish, immigrant, and LGBTQ populations, leading to concerns about downstream racial attitudes and policy preferences. Such errors are common whenever the public is asked to estimate proportions relevant to political issues, from refugee crises and polarization to climate change and COVID-19. Researchers across the social sciences interpret these errors as evidence of widespread misinformation that is topic-specific and potentially harmful. Here, we show that researchers and journalists have misinterpreted the origins and meaning of these misestimates by overlooking systematic distortions introduced by the domain-general psychological processes involved in estimating proportions under uncertainty. In general, people systematically rescale estimates of proportions toward more central prior expectations, resulting in the consistent overestimation of smaller groups and underestimation of larger groups. We formalize this process and show that it explains much of the systematic error in estimates of demographic groups ([Formula: see text] estimates from 22 countries). This domain-general account far outperforms longstanding group-specific explanations (e.g., biases toward specific groups). We find, moreover, that people make the same errors when estimating the size of racial, nonracial, and entirely nonpolitical groups, such as the proportion of Americans who have a valid passport or own a washing machine. Our results call for researchers, journalists, and pundits alike to reconsider how to interpret misperceptions about the demographic structure of society.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2025-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2413064122
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Media Influence and Politics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
50.42
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups

Cara Wong, Brian Guay, Tyler Marghetis, David Landy
12 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Media Influence and Politics
50.42
article

Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups

Cara Wong, Brian Guay, Tyler Marghetis, David Landy
article en
12 citations

Abstract

Americans dramatically overestimate the size of African American, Latino, Muslim, Asian, Jewish, immigrant, and LGBTQ populations, leading to concerns about downstream racial attitudes and policy preferences. Such errors are common whenever the public is asked to estimate proportions relevant to political issues, from refugee crises and polarization to climate change and COVID-19. Researchers across the social sciences interpret these errors as evidence of widespread misinformation that is topic-specific and potentially harmful. Here, we show that researchers and journalists have misinterpreted the origins and meaning of these misestimates by overlooking systematic distortions introduced by the domain-general psychological processes involved in estimating proportions under uncertainty. In general, people systematically rescale estimates of proportions toward more central prior expectations, resulting in the consistent overestimation of smaller groups and underestimation of larger groups. We formalize this process and show that it explains much of the systematic error in estimates of demographic groups ([Formula: see text] estimates from 22 countries). This domain-general account far outperforms longstanding group-specific explanations (e.g., biases toward specific groups). We find, moreover, that people make the same errors when estimating the size of racial, nonracial, and entirely nonpolitical groups, such as the proportion of Americans who have a valid passport or own a washing machine. Our results call for researchers, journalists, and pundits alike to reconsider how to interpret misperceptions about the demographic structure of society.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 122(14)
University of California, Merced (US), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), University of California System (US), Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (IR), Indiana University Bloomington (US), Institut des Sciences Cognitives (FR), Indiana University (US), Stony Brook University (US), Netflix (United States) (US), Hologic (Germany) (DE)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Media Influence and Politics
50.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.