People’s reports of perceptions of the share of various groups in the population are typically biased. The bias is generally greater for smaller groups. The bias also appears to vary by how people feel about the group—they are likelier to think that the groups they don’t like are bigger—and by stereotypes about the groups (see here and here).
A new paper makes a remarkable claim: “explicit estimates are not direct reflections of perceptions, but systematic transformations of those perceptions. As a result, surveys and polls that ask participants to estimate demographic proportions cannot be interpreted as direct measures of participants’ (mis)information, since a large portion of apparent error on any particular question will likely reflect rescaling toward a more moderate expected value…”
The claim is supported by a figure that takes the form of plotting a curve over averages. (It also reports results from other papers that base their inferences on similar such figures.)
The evidence doesn’t seem right for the claim. Ideally, we want to plot curves within people and show that the curves are roughly the same. (I doubt it to be the case.)
Second, it is one thing to claim that the reports of perceptions follow a particular rescaling formula, and another to claim that people are aware of what they are doing. I doubt that people are.
Third, if the claim that ‘a large portion of apparent error on any particular question will likely reflect rescaling toward a more moderate expected value’ is true, then presenting people correct information ought not to change how people think about groups, for e.g., perceived threat from immigrants. The calibrated error should be a much better moderator than raw error. Again, I doubt it.
But I could be proven wrong about each. And I am ok with that. The goal is to learn the right thing, not to be proven right.